Ex Parte Sesi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12980575 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/980,575 12/29/2010
27305 7590 11/02/2016
HOW ARD & HOW ARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
450 West Fourth Street
Royal Oak, MI 48067
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nasrin Sesi
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.
714557.00001 4928
EXAMINER
LOUIS, RICHARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
IPDocket@HowardandHoward.com
dtrost@HowardandHoward.com
tmorris@Howardandhoward.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NASRIN SESI
Appeal 2015-000037 1,2
Application 12/980,575
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES L. WORTH, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a compression
stocking. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. See Br., Claims
App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed
claims.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 29,
2010) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 27, 2014), as well as the
Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed July 17, 2014).
2 According to Appellant, Nasrin Sesi is the real party in interest. Br. 5.
Appeal2015-000037
Application 12/980,575
Id.
1. A compression stocking for a compression-therapy
patient comprises:
a foot portion that is adapted to matingly removably
receive and surround an entirety of a foot of the patient;
a closable and openable leg portion that extends upwardly
from a top of said foot portion, is adapted to removably receive
at least a portion of a corresponding leg of the patient, defines
adjoining edges of said leg portion, and includes a band that
defines an uppermost area of said leg portion and material of
which is more compressive and supportive with respect to
material of which a remainder of said leg portion is made; and
a fastening device that extends a substantial length of said
leg portion and is adapted to continuously fasten said adjoining
edges to and unfasten said adjoining edges from each other and
close and open said leg portion such that the compression
stocking can secure and apply continuous pressure to the foot and
leg, said fastening device including a zipper and an enfoldment,
wherein said enfoldment is connected and secured along a
continuous inner edge of said zipper, includes material that is
different with respect to the material of which at least one of said
band and the remainder of said leg portion is made, and is
disposed between said zipper and skin of the patient and
contacting the skin such that said enfoldment prevents said
zipper from contacting the skin.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bloom (US 4,166,463, iss. Sept. 4, 1979),
Gerke (US 7 ,069 ,670 B 1, iss. July 4, 2006), Hale
(US 5,450,630, iss. Sept. 19, 1995), and Myers (US 3,538,914,
iss. Nov. 10, 1970);
2
Appeal2015-000037
Application 12/980,575
II. claim l under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goodman (US 2,513,639, iss. July 4, 1950), Gerke, and Hale;
and
III. claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goodman, Gerke, Hale, and Hartigan (US 3,728,875, iss.
Apr. 24, 1973).
See Answer 3-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, among other things, that each of the obviousness
rejections of claim 1 are erroneous because "[ n ]one of these references are
directed toward a compression stocking for a compression therapy patient
that includes a band that defines an uppermost area of the leg portion where
the material of which is more compressive and supportive with respect to
material of which the remainder of the leg is made." See Br. 48, Claims
App. For the below reasons, we agree with Appellant, and, thus, we do not
sustain the rejection.
In each obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Hale
to teach "material [that] is more compressive and supportive with respect to
material of which a remainder of the leg portion is made, for the purpose of
preventing the leg portion ( 18) from falling down a wear[ er]' s leg. See
(col. 5, lines 7[-]17)." Answer 5; see also id. at 10. However, although the
cited portion of Hale discloses that "band or collar 40 may be secured to the
end edges 26a,b by a conventional stitched seam, such as indicated at 42,
and is capable of hugging the wearer's leg above the ankle region to prevent
the leg encompassing portion 18 of the sock from falling down when worn,"
3
Appeal2015-000037
Application 12/980,575
(Hale col. 5, 11. 12-17) the portion does not state that band or collar 40 is
more compressive and supportive than any other portion of Hale's sock.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain either obviousness
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, inasmuch as the Examiner does not rely on
any other reference to remedy the deficiencies in the rejections of claim 1,
we also do not sustain any of the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 4, 7,
and 11-13 depending from claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3,
4, 7, and 11-13.
REVERSED
4