Ex Parte Powell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11070582 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 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.
11/070,582 03/01/2005 Donald Powell 6129-23 3849
22442 7590 03/26/2012
SHERIDAN ROSS PC
1560 BROADWAY
SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
QUINN, RICHALE LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2012 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 DONALD POWELL, ROBERT AFRICA, and PAUL FAIR
____________

Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donald Powell, Robert Africa, and Paul Fair (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

2
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter is directed to a padding section for a glove
and an athletic glove including a palm section having at least one vented pad
section. Claim 1, reproduced below, with italics added, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A padding section for a glove, the padding section
comprising:
a base material positioned within at least a portion of a
palm side of the glove and configured to allow airflow through
the base material;
a non-perforated insert substantially aligned with the base
material, the insert comprising at least one of reticulated or
open foam;
a layer of material substantially aligned with the base
material and configured to allow airflow through the layer;
the base material positioned closest to a user's hand when
wearing the glove;
the non-perforated insert located substantially between
the base material and the layer;
the base material, the insert, and the layer defining at
least one ventilation path [sic- located on]1 the palm side of the
glove; and
the at least one ventilation path extends from a palm
facing side of the base material to a palm facing side of the
insert through a portion of the base material located on the palm
side of the glove, from the palm facing side of the insert to a
palm facing side of the layer through a portion of the insert
located on the palm facing side of the glove, and from the palm
facing side of the layer to an external environment facing side
of the layer through a portion of the layer located on the palm

1 On October 31, 2007, Appellants amended claim 1 by inserting the words
“located on” between “ventilation path” and “the palm”; however, in the
amendment filed April 17, 2008, Appellants inadvertently left out the
addition of the words “located on.”

Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

3
side of the glove, such that at least a portion of a palm side of
the user's hand is vented through the padding section.

App. Br. 28.

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5-8, 10, 13-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau (US 6,845,519 B2, iss. Jan. 25, 2005)
and Sullivan (US 6,618,860 B1, iss. Sep. 16, 2003). Ans. 3-4.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Garneau, Sullivan, and Gaiser (US 4,270,228, iss. Jun. 2, 1981). Ans. 4-5
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Garneau, Sullivan, and Eibert (US 5,926,847, iss. Jun. 27, 1999). Ans.
5.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garneau, Sullivan, and Landi (US 4,485,568, iss. Dec. 4,
1984). Ans. 5-6.
Claims 23-25, 27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garneau and Landi. Ans. 6.
Claims 26, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garneau, Landi, and Sullivan. Ans. 6-7.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Garneau, Landi, and Eibert. Ans. 7.

Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

4
OPINION
Obviousness based on Garneau and Sullivan
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 4-7 as a group. See App. Br. 13-20.
We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2 and
4-7 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
First, the Examiner finds that the glove of Garneau’s second
embodiment, as shown in Figure 2, discloses “a patch like palm section”
which constitutes the padding section of independent claim 1. See Ans. 7, 8.
More particularly, the Examiner interprets: the mesh material 12 on the
bottom of the “patch like palm section” to constitute claim 1’s base material;
either one of the palm pads 16', 18' in the middle of the “patch like palm
section” to constitute claim 1’s insert; and the leather 33 (i.e., which includes
the outer portions over the palm pads 16', 18' and a middle portion in the
form of palm area 12a' of non-perforated sheet material having apertures 30,
32 in a central area thereof) on top of the “patch like palm section” to
constitute claim 1’s layer of material configured to allow airflow
therethrough. Ans. 3, 7-8. In other words, the Examiner interprets the
middle portion of leather 33, or the palm area 12a' of non-perforated sheet
material having apertures 30, 32 therein, to be part of Garneau’s padding
section, even though there is no insert directly below the middle portion (i.e.,
the insert is not coextensive with the base material 12 and leather 33), and
this middle portion of Garneau’s leather 33 is what is configured to allow
airflow therethrough via the apertures 30, 32 (see col. 4, ll. 43-44). Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that Garneau’s leather is not “configured to allow
airflow through the portion of the layer forming the padding section as
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

5
required by independent claim 1,” and instead Garneau’s glove “is ventilated
on the palm side of the glove between the padding sections” 16', 18' via the
apertures 30, 32 in the middle portion of the leather 33. App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument as it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellants appear to interpret
Garneau to have two padding sections each of which only include the
portions of the mesh material 12 directly below the palm pads 16', 18' as the
base material, the palm pads 16', 18' as the inserts, and the outer portions of
the leather 33 that have the palm pads 16', 18' directly therebelow as the
layer of material. Thus, in Appellants’ interpretation, the middle portion of
the leather 33 that includes the apertures 30, 32 is not part of a padding
section. However, claim 1 only requires the insert to be “substantially
aligned with the base material.” Claim 1 is not so narrow as to require that
the insert be of the same size or area as, or coextensive with, the base
material and the layer of material which it is located between. Nor does
claim 1 require that the structure of the leather 33, which makes it
“configured to allow airflow through the layer,” be immediately above the
insert similar to Appellants’ embodiment shown in Figure 6.
Moreover, Appellants’ Specification2 does not limit the padding
section to only those areas where the non-perforated insert is located
between the base material and the layer. In the “Summary of the Claimed
Presented Subject Matter,” the Appellants’ cite to padding section 600 of
Figure 6 to correspond to the claimed padded section. App. Br. 7. Padding

2 Specification, as amended on January 31, 2007, replacing paragraph on
page 7 starting at line 14 and ending at line 25 of the original Specification,
filed March, 1, 2005.
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

6
section 600 includes a top layer 606. Figure 6 depicts top layer 606 having a
plurality of perforations 608 aligned over insert 604, the remainder of the top
layer 606 does not include a plurality of perforations. Thus, the
Specification provides that padding section 600 includes a top layer 606
beyond the area above the insert 604. As such, it stands to reason that the
area between Garneau’s two palm pads 16', 18' can be considered part of the
padding section.
We determine the Examiner’s interpretation that Garneau discloses a
patch like palm section having leather 33 as the layer configured to allow
airflow therethrough via the apertures 30, 32 would be reasonable to a
person of ordinary skill in the art in light of Appellants’ Specification. See
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(The scope of the claims in patent applications is not determined solely on
the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art). Thus, Garneau’s leather
material 33 is “configured to allow airflow through the layer” because of the
apertures 30, 32.
Appellants refer our attention to the disclosure in their Specification
indicating that conventional leather and synthetic leather are covering
materials that “lack sufficient breathability to provide sufficient circulation
and/or venting” (Spec. 5, ll. 8-12), and are examples of “a non-breathable
material” (Spec. 7, ll. 24-25). We are not persuaded by this disclosure in
Appellants’ Specification that Garneau’s leather 33 fails to meet the claim
language of being “configured to allow airflow through the layer.” Because
Garneau’s leather 33 has apertures 30, 32 capable of allowing airflow
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

7
therethrough, it meets the language of being configured to allow airflow
therethrough regardless of the sufficiency of the amount of circulation or
venting that the leather affords.
Appellants point out that the Garneau reference appears to have
inconsistencies between the disclosure in the drawings and the disclosure in
the specification. Reply Br. 2-5. We acknowledge that the Garneau
reference has inconsistencies; however, we note that while the Examiner
correctly looks to apply a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
terms under examination, it is also necessary to properly construe what an
applied reference fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and
Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982) (reference is prior art not only for
specifically disclosed embodiments, but also all that it fairly teaches).
Regardless of the inconsistencies in the Garneau reference, we agree with
the Examiner that the second embodiment of Garneau’s glove shown in
Figure 2 fairly teaches a patch like palm section having an inner mesh
material 12, a middle insert in the form of palm pads 16', 18', and an outer
layer of leather 33 being configured to allow airflow therethrough via the
apertures 30, 32 in the central section of the leather.
Second, the Examiner also finds that Garneau discloses at least one
ventilation path which extends from the palm facing side to the external
environment facing side of the layer such that at least a portion of a palm
side of the user’s hand is vented through the padding section. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that Garneau fails to show or describe the at least one
ventilation path through the layer of material from the palm facing side to
the external environment facing side. App. Br. 13.
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

8
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Claim 1 does not
require that the portion of the at least one ventilation path extending from a
palm facing side of the base material to a palm facing side of the insert
through a portion of the base material located on the palm side of the glove
be linearly aligned with the portion of the ventilation path extending from
the palm facing side of the insert to a palm facing side of the layer through a
portion of the insert located on the palm facing side of the glove. Claim 1
also does not require that either of the aforementioned portions of the at least
one ventilation path be linearly aligned with the portion of the at least one
ventilation path extending from the palm facing side of the layer to an
external environment facing side of the layer through a portion of the layer
located on the palm side of the glove. Rather, all claim 1 requires is that
each of the base material, the insert, and the layer of material have a portion
of a ventilation path therethrough. Garneau, as modified by Sullivan to
replace its closed cell foam with open cell foam, has a portion of a
ventilation path through each of its mesh material 12 (base material), palm
pads 16' or 18' (insert), and leather 33 (layer of material) having apertures
30, 32 therein. Even if the portions of the ventilation path are not aligned
with each other in Garneau’s glove, air may still travel through Garneau’s
glove in a circuitous path, such as through the portion of the ventilation path
in the mesh material 12 (base material), between the mesh material 12 (base
material) and the open cell foam palm pad 16' or 18' (insert) to the portion of
the ventilation path in the open cell foam palm pad 16' or 18' (insert),
through the portion of the ventilation path in the open cell foam palm pad 16'
or 18' (insert), between the palm pad 16' or18' (insert) and the leather 33
(layer of material) and in between the stitches to the apertures 30, 32
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

9
(portion of the ventilation path) in the leather 33 (layer of material), and
through the apertures 30, 32 (portion of the ventilation path) in the leather 33
(layer of material), and still satisfy the requirements of claim 1. Thus, for
the reasons stated supra, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Garneau fails to disclose a portion of the ventilation path through the layer
of material because Garneau’s leather 33 has a portion of the at least one
ventilation path, via the apertures 30, 32 in the middle portion of the leather
material, which would act to vent the palm side of the user’s hand through
the padding section or patch like palm section.
Third, the Examiner also finds that Garneau fails to disclose that the
insert (palm pads 16' or 18') comprises “at least one of reticulated or open
foam”; however, Sullivan discloses “a glove providing ventilation to the
wearer having a porous non perforated polyurethane (Column 3, lines 18-20)
foam material (31).” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Garneau’s glove by
replacing the closed cell foam with the open cell foam as taught by Sullivan
in order to provide a breathable pad for the glove and thus, increase airflow
to the user’s hands. Ans. 4. Appellants contend that “the Examiner’s
proposed modification would render the Garneau glove unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose of avoiding [the] use of vented padding sections on the
palm side of the Garneau glove.” App. Br. 18.
We disagree with Appellants that replacing Garneau’s closed cell
foam with Sullivan’s open cell foam would make Garneau’s glove
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because it was not Garneau’s
intended purpose to avoid the use of venting padding sections on the palm
side of the glove as suggested by Appellants. Rather, Garneau sought to
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

10
improve the comfort of cyclists wearing hand gloves and did so by
“providing a glove with features preventing the sealing of the palm
moisture-release perforations thereof when the handle glove grasps the
bicycle handlebar.” Col. 1, ll. 54-57. Substituting the open cell foam of
Sullivan for the closed cell foam of Garneau would in no way seal the palm
moisture-release perforations of Garneau’s glove to make Garneau’s glove
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Indeed, the substitution of the open
cell foam for the closed cell foam would only increase air circulation to the
cyclist’s palm and thus, aid in ventilation already being performed by the
apertures in the non-padded sections of the glove and the pores in the
naturally breathable leather material.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau
and Sullivan.
Claims 13-15 and 19-22
Appellants argue claims 13-15 and 19-22 as a group. See App. Br.
20-21. We select independent claim 13 as the representative claim, and
claims 14, 15, and 19-22 stand or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Independent claim 13 is directed to an athletic glove including, inter
alia, a non-perforated foam layer being at least one of reticulated or open
cell foam, and a layer of material configured to allow airflow through the
layer. App. Br. 30. A base material, the non-perforated foam layer, and the
layer define at least one ventilation path that extends “from the palm facing
side of the layer to an external environment facing side of the layer through
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

11
a portion of the layer located on the palm side of the glove to vent the palm
of the user through the at least one vented pad section.” App. Br. 31.
The Examiner makes the same findings as discussed supra for claim 1
(Ans. 3-4, 7-9) and Appellants set forth the same arguments (App. Br. 20-
21). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the same reasons
as discussed supra. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
13-15 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau and
Sullivan.
Claims 8 and 17
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and recites that “the layer comprises a
breathable material.” App. Br. 29.
The Examiner finds that Garneau’s leather 33 is a breathable material.
Ans. 4. Appellants contend that Garneau’s leather 33 does not provide
sufficient breathability to allow air to flow through the layer. App. Br. 21.
Although Garneau’s leather 33 permits venting of the user’s palm
through the apertures 30, 32 in the middle portion of leather 33 similar to
Appellant’s Figure 6 embodiment, we agree with Appellants that Garneau’s
leather is not a breathable material. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garneau and Sullivan.
Claims 10 and 16
Appellants argue claims 10 and 16 as a group. See App. Br. 21-22.
We select claim 10 as the representative claim, and claim 16 stands or falls
with claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 10 depends
from claim 1 and recites that “the layer comprises a non[-]breathable
material including a plurality of perforations.” App. Br. 29.
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

12
The Examiner finds that Garneau’s leather 33 provides ventilation
and points to reference numeral 32 and the disclosure at column 4, lines 43-
44, which states that “[a]pertures 30, 32 allow free heat release and moisture
escape.” Ans. 3. Appellants contend that Garneau’s padded sections 16', 18'
are not shown or described as having perforations in the leather 33, and
apertures 30, 32 in leather 33 are shown in the non-padded sections. App.
Br. 21.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions for the reasons as
discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garneau and Sullivan.
Obviousness based on Garneau, Sullivan, and Gaiser
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the non-perforated
insert comprises a reticulated foam.”
The Examiner finds that the combination of Garneau and Sullivan
fails to disclose an insert comprising reticulated foam; however, “Gaiser
discloses a glove with a padded portion being comprised of reticulated foam
(Column 2, line 40).” Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the glove of Garneau and Sullivan “by utilizing
reticulated foam as taught by Gaiser in order to achieve free air circulation
(Column 1, line[s ]48-49).” Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
modification by Gaiser’s teaching of reticulated foam would render the
glove from the combination of Garneau and Sullivan unsuitable for its
intended purpose.
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

13
of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau, Sullivan,
and Gaiser.
Obviousness based on Garneau, Sullivan, and Eibert
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the layer comprises a
mesh.” App. Br. 29.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Garneau and Sullivan
lacks the layer comprising a mesh; however, “Eibert discloses mesh (23) on
the outermost layer of a glove. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
glove of the combination of Garneau and Sullivan by Eibert’s teaching of an
outer layer of mesh “in order to better facilitate airflow.” Id. Appellants
argue that the Examiner’s modification by Eibert’s teaching of a mesh outer
layer would render the glove from the combination of Garneau and Sullivan
unsuitable for its intended purpose.
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau, Sullivan,
and Eibert.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and contains all the limitation of
claim 17. For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 17,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau, Sullivan, and Eibert.

Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

14
Obviousness based on Garneau, Sullivan, and Landi
Appellants argue claims 11 and 12 as a group. See App. Br. 23. We
select claim 11 as the representative claim, and claim 12 stands or falls with
claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 11 depends from
claim 1 and recites that “the insert comprises a formed rubber.” App. Br. 29.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Garneau and Sullivan
lacks the insert being comprised of formed rubber; however, Landi
“discloses padding comprised of formed rubber with a plurality of
ventilation pathways (Column 2, lines 10-11 and Column 4, lines 18-21).”
Ans. 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s modification by Landi’s
teaching of a formed rubber insert having ventilation pathways would render
the glove from the combination of Garneau and Sullivan unsuitable for its
intended purpose. App. Br. 23.
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau,
Sullivan, and Landi.
Obviousness based on Garneau and Landi
Claims 23-25, 30, and 31
Appellants argue claims 23-25, 30, and 31 as a group. See App. Br.
23-24. We select independent claim 23 as the representative claim, and
claims 24, 25, 30, and 31 stands or falls with claim 23. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Independent claim 23 is directed to an athletic glove including, inter
alia, a non-perforated formed rubber layer defining a plurality of ventilated
pathways, and a layer of material configured to allow airflow through the
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

15
layer. App. Br. 32. A base material, the non-perforated formed rubber
layer, and the layer define at least one ventilation path that extends “from the
palm facing side of the layer to an external environment facing side of the
layer through a portion of the layer located on the palm side of the glove to
vent the palm side of the user through the at least one vented pad section.”
App. Br. 33.
The Examiner finds that Garneau substantially discloses the subject
matter of independent claim 23, but fails to disclose a cushioning material
being formed from rubber and having ventilated openings. Ans. 6. The
Examiner also finds that Landi discloses padding comprised of formed
rubber and having a plurality of ventilation pathways. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Garneau to include the formed rubber having ventilation pathways
as taught by Landi “in order to achieve a resilient structure in which air can
pass through.” Id. Appellants rely on the same arguments as discussed
supra with respect to independent claim 1. App. Br. 23-24.
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Garneau and Landi.
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 23 and recites that “the layer comprises
a breathable material.” App. Br. 33.
The Examiner finds that Garneau’s leather 33 is a breathable material.
Ans. 3 and 6. Appellants rely on the same arguments as discussed supra
with respect to claim 8. App. Br. 24-25.
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

16
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 8, we agree
with Appellants’ argument that Garneau’s leather 33 is not a breathable
material and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau and Landi.
Obviousness based on Garneau, Landi, and Sullivan
Claim 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 23 and recites that “the layer comprises
a non-breathable material with a plurality of perforations.” App. Br. 33.
The Examiner makes similar finds to those discussed supra with
respect to claim 10. See Ans. 3, 6. Appellants present the same arguments
as discussed supra with respect to claim 10. App. Br. 25.
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 10, we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Garneau, Landi, and Sullivan.
Claims 29 and 32
Appellants argue claims 29 and 32 as a group. See App. Br. 25-26.
We select claim 29 as the representative claim, and claim 32 stands or falls
with claim 29. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 29 depends
from claim 23 and recites that “the base material comprises a non-breathable
material with a plurality of perforations.” App. Br. 33.
The Examiner makes similar findings to those discussed above with
respect to claim 10, See Ans. 3, 6. Appellants present the same unpersuasive
arguments as discussed supra with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 25-26.
For the reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2009-014542
Application 11/070,582

17
of claims 29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau,
Landi, and Sullivan.
Obviousness based on Garneau, Landi, and Eibert
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and contains all the limitation of
claim 27. For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 27,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Garneau, Landi, and Eibert.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 9-16, 19-26, and
29-32.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 17, 18, 27, and
28.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh