Ex Parte Nordness et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 4, 2012

10316964 (B.P.A.I. May. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/316,964 12/11/2002 Cynthia H. Nordness KCX-1453 6019
22827 7590 05/04/2012
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
KIDWELL, MICHELE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte CYNTHIA H. NORDNESS and
KATHERINE C. WHEELER
__________

Appeal 2010-012218
Application 10/316,964
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC GRIMES, and JEFFREY N.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to
disposable pants. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated and
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses disposable “boxer briefs having a garment
shell made of a stretchable material” (Spec. 1, ll. 1-7). Figure 5A of the
Specification is shown below:
App
App

Figu
pant
pane
and b
(Spe
and r

stret
cont
uppe
and f
one o
cont
the w
inner

U.S.

1 Sai
eal 2010-0
lication 10
re 5A show
s. The Spe
l 14 can b
ack panel
c. 8:6-8).
Claims 1
eads as fo
1. A dis
a garmen
chable leg
inuous sea
r edge of a
irst and se
f the leg o
an absor
wherein
act the wea
earer’s bo
surface.

The Exa
C. § 102(e

to, US 6,5
12218
/316,964
s a partia
cification
e attached
14 can be
-8, 16, 17
llows:
posable pa
t shell inc
panels, th
m running
back wai
cond inse
penings;
bent struct
the dispos
rer’s body
dy, the ab
miner has
) as anticip

16,473 B2
l front per
discloses
together a
joined to
, and 21-2
nt compri
luding a s
e middle p
from an u
st edge, th
ams, each
ure in the
able pant i
and an ou
sorbent str
rejected cl
ated by S

, Feb. 11,
2
spective v
that the “fr
t crotch se
each of the
7 are on ap
sing:
tretchable
anel attach
pper edge
e leg pane
inseam ex
crotch reg
ncludes an
ter surfac
ucture def
aims 1-4,
aito.1 The
2003.

iew of an e
ont panel
am 20 …
leg panel
peal. Cla
middle pa
ed to the l
of a front
ls defining
tending fro
ion of the
inner sur
e configur
ining at le
16, 17, an
Examiner
mbodime
12 and the
The front p
s 16 at sea
im 1 is rep
nel and tw
eg panels
waist edge
two leg o
m a crotc
garment sh
face confi
ed to face
ast a porti
d 21-23 un
has also r
nt of the
back
anel 12
m 18”
resentativ
o
along a
to an
penings,
h region to
ell; and
gured to
away from
on of the
der 35
ejected,

e

Appeal 2010-012218
Application 10/316,964

3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 5, 6, 24, and-25 in view of Saito and
claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 in view of Saito and May.2 Since the same issue is
dispositive for all three rejections, we will consider them together.
The Examiner finds that “Saito discloses a disposable pant comprising
a garment shell including a stretchable middle panel and two stretchable leg
panels, the middle panel attached to the leg panels along a continuous seam
running from an upper edge of a front waist edge to an upper edge of a back
waist edge” (Answer 3-4).
Appellants argue that Saito’s “middle panel is not attached to the leg
panels along a continuous seam running from the upper edge front waist
edge continuously to the upper edge of the back waist edge” (Appeal Br. 7).
Appellants contend that Saito’s “middle panel is connected to the leg panels
via four seams (two on the front of the article and two on the back) wherein
two begin at the front waist and terminate at the leg openings and two begin
at the back waist and terminate at the leg openings” (id.).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Saito
includes the continuous seam limitation of claim 1. The Examiner reasons
that Saito meets this limitation because the “central seam that attaches 2A
and 2B to panels 3A and 3B … may be considered to be continuous as
claimed” (Answer 5-6). The Examiner illustrates her interpretation with an
annotated version of Figure 1 of Saito, shown below:

2 May et al., US 6,833,179 B2, Dec. 21, 2004.
App
App

The
cons
Exam
and m
thus
also
meet
cont
(id.)

attac
it att
show
eal 2010-0
lication 10
Figure is a
iders the c
iner reaso
eets alon
meets the
reasons th
the claim
inuously a
.
Saito dis
h a middle
aches two
n below:
12218
/316,964
nnotated t
entral seam
ns that th
g the wais
limitation
at “the sea
ed limitati
cross the l
closes, ho
panel to t
parts of th
o show, am
of Saito’
e “central
tline A to
of the con
m running
ons at leas
eg panels a
wever, tha
he leg pan
e middle p
4
ong other
s pants to
seam conn
secure the
tinuous se
along the
t for the fa
nd throug
t the centr
els, as req
anel to ea
things, th
be the con
ects with p
panels to
am (Answ
waistline
ct that the
h the ends
al seam in
uired by th
ch other. F
at the Exa
tinuous se
anels 2A
the leg pan
er 6). The
A would e
seam runs
of the mid
its pants d
e claims o
igure 2 o

miner
am. The
and 2B
els,” and
Examiner
qually

dle seam”
oes not
n appeal,
f Saito is

App
App

Figu
1 (Sa
cont
the f
at co
bond
3c an
that
pane
regio
cont
regio

… w
Exam
the w
eal 2010-0
lication 10
re 2 shows
ito, col. 2
inuously o
ront and re
l. 3, ll. 9-1
ed to inne
d rear por
the inner a
ls of claim
n to the le
inuous sea
n as claim
The Exa
ould equa
iner has n
aistline o
12218
/316,964
“an explo
, ll. 11-12)
r intermitt
ar side po
2). Saito
r panels 2A
tions 2d, 3
nd outer p
1) are joi
g hole in t
m that run
ed.
miner also
lly meet th
ot pointed
f the pants
ded persp
. Saito dis
ently bond
rtions 2c,
also disclo
and 2B,
d (id. at c
anels (whi
ned by sep
he front an
s from the
asserts th
e claimed
to any di
. We note
5
ective view
closes tha
ed to each
2d … as w
ses that th
respective
ol. 3, ll. 21
ch corresp
arate seam
d rear of t
front wais
at “the sea
limitation
sclosure in
that eleme

of the pa
t the “inne
other alon
ell as alon
e outer pa
ly, along t
-31). Thu
ond to the
s that run
he garmen
t region to
m running
” (Answer
Saito of a
nt 5 is de
nts” show
r sheets 2A
g zones 2
g the cuto
nels 3A an
he front po
s, Saito di
middle an
from the w
t, not by a
the back
along the
6). Howe
seam run
scribed by
n in Figur
, 2B are
c1, 2d1 of
uts 4” (id.
d 3B are
rtions 2c,
scloses
d leg
aist

waist
waistline
ver, the
ning along
Saito as a

e

n
Appeal 2010-012218
Application 10/316,964

6
elastic member (Saito, col. 4, l. 31) that is bonded to the sheets shown in
Figure 2 “using suitable adhesives” (id. at col. 5, l. 39). In any event, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how a seam running along the
waistline of Saito’s pants would connect a middle panel to the leg panels.
We therefore reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by
Saito.
Independent claims 16 and 21 also require that the middle panel is
attached to the leg panels by a continuous seam running from “the middle
panel first waist edge to the middle panel second waist edge” (claim 16) or
running from “an upper edge of a front waist edge to an upper edge of a
back waist edge” (claim 21). Thus, the reasoning above also applies to these
claims. We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1-4, 16, 17, and 21-23.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner
relies on the findings with respect to Saito as discussed above. Thus, we
also reverse these rejections.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-4, 16, 17, and 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). We also reverse the rejection of claims 5, 6, 7, 8, and 24-
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

lp