Ex Parte Lalji

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12347063 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/347,063 12/31/2008
44538 7590 08/02/2016
DANIELS, POLLEY, PA
7251 WEST PALMETTO PARK ROAD
SUITE 202
BOCA RATON, FL 33433
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DAVIDLALJI
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1051.8004 1430
EXAMINER
NELSON JR, MIL TON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
dan@danpolley.com
betty@danpolley.com
beatrizbernal@bellsouth.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID LALJI
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347,063
Technology Center 3600
Before: BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRETT
C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to vehicle seat protector. Claims 1 and 8,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A seat protector towel for a vehicle seat, the vehicle seat
having a seat member, back member and a headrest, said seat
protector towel comprising:
a towel having a first upper end, a second lower end, a first
side, a second side, a first surface and a second surface, said
towel having rounded comers at an upper and lower left side and
an upper and lower right side; and
an aperture defined by said towel and located at a specific
location of said towel, said aperture having a width which
comprises at least a majority of a width of the towel at said
specific location, said aperture adapted for insertion therethrough
of a vehicle headrest without damaging the towel, wherein in an
unfolded configuration for said towel said aperture is disposed
adjacent to the first end of said towel and provides for a quick
attachment and quick detachment of the towel from the headrest;
wherein a middle area of said first side curves inward and
a middle area of said second side curves inward such that a lower
portion of said towel is wider in dimension than a middle portion
of said towel.
8. A seat protector towel for a vehicle seat, the vehicle seat
having a seat member, back member and a headrest, said seat
protector towel comprising:
a towel having a first upper end, a second lower end, a first
side, a second side, a first surface and a second surface; and
a continuous aperture at all times defined by said towel
and located at a specific location of said towel, said aperture
adapted for insertion therethrough of a vehicle headrest without
damaging the towel, said aperture having a width which
comprises at least a majority of a width of the towel at said
specific location, wherein in an unfolded configuration for said
towel said aperture is disposed adjacent to the first end of said
towel and provides for a quick attachment and quick detachment
of the towel from the headrest, said aperture providing a
securement point for said towel to the vehicle seat.
2
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reiter
Gooding
Ciccone
Jones
Ward
Henry
Ruiz
Pirraglia
Gonzalez
Eldridge
Lion
us 2,544,354
us 5,595,807
us 5,797,144
US 6,351,869 Bl
US 7,000,984 Bl
US D275,827
US D316,941
US D377,730
US D380,119
US D385,743
US D398,140
REJECTIONS
Mar. 6, 1951
Jan.21, 1997
Aug. 25, 1998
Mar. 5, 2002
Feb.21,2006
Oct. 9, 1984
May 21, 1991
Feb.4, 1997
June 24, 1997
Nov. 4, 1997
Sept. 15, 1998
Claims 10-12, 14, 17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the applicant regards as the invention.
Ans. 5.
Claims 8, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ruiz. Id.
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lion. Ans. 6.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Reiter. Id.
Claims 10, 14, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ruiz. Ans. 7.
Claims 10, 12, 14, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lion. Ans. 8.
3
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Reiter. Ans. 9.
Claims 1, 2, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ruiz and Ciccone. Ans. 10.
Claims 1, 2, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ruiz and Gooding. Ans. 11.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Ciccone. Ans. 12.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Gooding. Ans. 14.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz, Ciccone, and Jones. Ans. 15.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz, Gooding, and Jones. Ans. 16.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter, Ciccone, and Jones. Id.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter, Gooding, and Jones. Ans. 17.
Claims 6, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Ciccone. Ans. 18.
Claims 6, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Gooding. Ans. 19.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Ciccone. Ans. 20.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Gooding. Ans. 22.
4
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Jones. Ans. 23.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lion and Jones. Ans. 24.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Jones. Id.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Pirraglia. Ans. 25.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lion and Pirraglia. Ans. 26.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Pirraglia. Id.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Jones. Ans. 27.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Jones. Ans. 28.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Gooding. Id.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Gooding. Ans. 30.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Ciccone. Ans. 31.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Ciccone. Ans. 32.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Gooding. Ans. 33.
5
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Gooding. Ans. 34.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Ciccone. Ans. 35.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruiz and Ciccone. Ans. 36.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Henry. Ans. 3 7.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Gonzalez. Ans. 38.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Pirraglia. Ans. 39.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Henry. Ans. 40.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Gonzalez. Ans. 41.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Pirraglia. Ans. 42.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Ward. Ans. 43.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reiter and Eldridge. Ans. 44.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 10-12, 14, 17, and 24 as indefinite due to
an apparent minor error in claim 10 stating "large in enough in size." Ans.
6
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
8. While we agree with the Examiner that this is a small typographical error
and should be corrected in any subsequent amendment, it does not rise to the
level of indefiniteness required to sustain the rejection, but instead seems to
be better addressed by way of a claim objection. The Examiner has not
sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill would not be on reasonable
notice of the metes and bounds of claim protection being sought. Rather,
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand what is intended
by the claim language and recognize the error for what it is. Accordingly,
we do not sustain this rejection.
Anticipation by Ruiz
The Examiner finds that Ruiz teaches all of the elements of
independent claim 8. Ans. 5. Appellant first argues that Ruiz is deficient
because it is a washcloth that "is much smaller in width or length (depending
on orientation) than the person using the washcloth to dry off' and that "the
washcloth would not adequately protect a seat even if [it] could be secured
to the seat." App. Br. 9. The claims, however, recite no specific length, nor
do they require any particular percentage of coverage of the seat by the
protector. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the
towel/washcloth of Ruiz is sized "such that it can protect some portion of a
seat having a seat member and a back member, when placed thereupon" to
sufficiently meet the language of claim 8.
Appellant next argues that the aperture in Ruiz would be incapable "of
receiving a vehicle headrest without damaging the Ruiz towel." Id.
Contrary to Appellant's argument, the claims do not require the towel to fit
over the top of the headrest. As the Examiner alternatively explains, it was
conventional for a headrest to have a single post, and, thus, the towel of Ruiz
would have been capable of receiving the headrest through the aperture by
7
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
insertion of the post through the towel and into the seat back. Ans. 48.
Appellant does not present persuasive arguments in relation to this rationale
upon which the Examiner relies. Thus, the Examiner's finding of the
mounting post fitting through the aperture is sufficient.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Appellant argues that Ruiz fails to
show the lower portion of the device being wider in dimension than an upper
portion of the device. App. Br. 9. As the Examiner correctly finds,
however, the claims do not specify what portion constitutes a "lower
portion" and thus the fact that the towel in Ruiz tapers at both its top and
bottom means that a portion lower than the top portion is wider than the
upper portion, thus meeting the language of the claim. Ans. 49.
As to claim 23, Appellant argues that Ruiz fails to show the claimed
upper and lower ends that are curved in shape because "Ruiz is much closer
to a triangle" and "a significant portion of the ends are straight." App. Br. 9.
While this may be true, it does not negate the fact that Ruiz also clearly
depicts that the trans1t10n between the straighter sides of the triangle
represents a curved portion, thus meeting the claim language.
Regarding claims 10, 14, 24, and 25, these claims recite limitations
already addressed above with respect to claims 8, 20, and 23. As such we
sustain these rejections on the same basis as stated above with respect to
claims 8, 20, and 23. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 8, 10, 14, 20, and 23-25 as anticipated by Ruiz.
Obviousness over Ruiz and Ciccone
The Examiner finds that Ruiz teaches all elements of claim 1 except
for the recitation(s) regarding the inward curvature of the towel. Ans. 10.
The Examiner also finds that Ciccone teaches "configuring a towel with a
middle area of a first side of the towel curving inward and a middle area of
8
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
the second side of the towel curving inward such that a lower portion of the
towel is wider in dimension than a middle portion of the towel." Id. The
Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Ruiz'
straight sides with the inwardly curving sides of Ciccone as "[ t ]he claimed
curvature merely represents a matter of choice in design." Id.
First, we note that Appellant merely restates the same arguments we
have already found unpersuasive as to the anticipation rejection of claim 8
and the same or similar recitations found in claim 1. See App. Br. 15-16.
Appellant's arguments against the combination of Ruiz and Ciccone
essentially amount to pointing out reasons why one would not want to
combine the features, but stops short of a valid basis for determining that
one skilled in the art would not actually combine the teachings of the
references. See App. Br. 16. While there might be reasons one of skill in
the art would not want to reduce the surface area of Ruiz, there may also be
reasons, such as design choice, to add a contoured shape to the seat protector
such as that taught in Ciccone, as the Examiner has stated. Ans. l 0
We further note that the Gonzalez reference, used in rejections of
claims 23 and 24 is a design patent showing an exercise towel having a
narrower middle portion. While this reference is not applied in a rejection of
claim 1, and is not necessary for our affirmance of this rejection, being a
design patent, the presence of an inwardly curving middle contour as a
design choice in a towel, as suggested by the Examiner, is supported by the
prior art of record. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that where dependent claims "were found to
have been obvious, the broader [independent claims] must also have been
obvious").
9
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
Appellant makes no specific argument regarding claim 2, which
depends from claim 1. As to claims 18 and 21, which contain similar
recitations as contained in claims 20 and 23 discussed above, we find
Appellant's arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 18, and 21 over
Ruiz and Ciccone.
Claim 5
The Examiner rejects claim 5 as unpatentable over Ruiz, Ciccone, and
Jones. Appellant's argument against the addition of Jones is that Jones
allegedly "provides no discussion or drawings showing indicia on the
towel." App. Br. 23. Contrary to this assertion, Jones clearly shows a pair
of stripes bounding the design region 225, which in and of themselves, may
represent indicia, as claimed. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Claims 6, 19, and22
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 19, and 22 as obvious over Ruiz and
Ciccone. Ans. 18. Appellant merely restates arguments already addressed
above in relation to the rejections already discussed. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection for the reasons already stated.
Claims 11, 12, 16, 17
Appellant merely incorporates arguments already stated and found
unpersuasive with respect to the Ruiz and Jones references. App. Br. 33, 34,
36, 37. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 over Ruiz and Jones
for the reasons already stated.
Remaining Rejections
The Examiner provides numerous cumulative rejections, which we
decline to address. The rejections already sustained in the Opinion above
encompass all of the pending claims and as such there is no need to address
10
Appeal2013-000703
Application 12/347 ,063
the additional rejections. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 223
USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (indicating an agency (e.g., the ITC) can decide
a single dispositive issue of numerous resolved by the presiding officer and
that there is no need for the Commission to decide all issues decided by the
presiding officer).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-25
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11