Ex Parte Van Os et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201614362730 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/362,730 06/04/2014 Jacobus Petrus Johannes Van Os 138325 7590 03/18/2016 PHILIPS LIGHTING BY P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 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. 2011P01341WOUS 6343 EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2016 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): kim.larocca@philips.com jo.cangelosi@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACOBUS PETRUS JOHANNES VAN OS, STEVEN BROEILS LUITJENS, LIESBETH VAN PIETERSON, GUOFU ZHOU, and FRANK ANTON VAN ABEELEN Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed January 21, 2015 (Final), the Appeal Brief filed June 16, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed October 23, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed December 22, 2015 (Reply Br.). Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants2 appeal the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 1-12 are rejected as obvious over Smith3 in view of Post. 4 Burr5 is added to reject claims 13-15.6 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The claims are directed to an electronic textile (see, e.g., claim 1) and a method for manufacturing it (see, e.g., claim 13). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An electronic textile comprising: an electronic structure including conductive wires being at least partly spaced apart from each other and one or more electronic components connected to the conductive wires, wherein one or more gaps are formed in the electronic structure between the at least partly spaced apart conductive wires, and a fabric structure including two fabric portions, wherein the electronic structure is between the two fabric portions, and wherein the two fabric portions are joined together according to a bonding pattern including bonding segments, the bonding segments being arranged in one or more of the gaps of 2 Appellants identify the real party of interest as Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Smith, II et al., US 4,070,217, issued Jan. 24, 1978. 4 Post et al., US 6,210,771 Bl, issued Apr. 3, 2001. 5 Burr et al., WO 2005/123378 Al, published Dec. 29, 2005. 6 The Examiner lists claims 12-16 as rejected over Smith, Post and Burr, but Burr is applied to meet the method limitations of claims 13-15. There is no claim 16 pending. 2 Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 the electronic structure such that the electronic structure is held in place in the fabric structure by the bonding pattern. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 12. OPINION For the rejection of claims 1-12 as obvious over Smith in view of Post, Appellants focus their arguments on claims 1 and 2. We select those claims as representative for resolving the issues on appeal. As found by the Examiner, Smith teaches an electronic textile structure (electric blanket) having first and second fabric layers bonded together by fusion bonding to form channels into which electrically conductive wires are disposed. Final 2; Smith, Abstract. The Examiner acknowledges that Smith does not teach connecting an electronic component to the conductive wires, and turns to Post to support a finding of a reason within the prior art for connecting an electronic component. Id. Claim l requires "one or more electronic components connected to the conductive wires." Thus, we agree with Appellants that the claimed electronic structure requires both electronic components and conductive wires. Reply Br. 4. Two dispositive issues arise: (1) Have Appellants shown the Examiner reversibly erred in finding a reason to connect electronic components to the wires of Smith based upon the teachings of Post; and (2) would the electronic structure suggested by the combination be held in place in the fabric structure by the bonding pattern of Smith? Compare Final 2-3; Ans. 5-6 with Appeal Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4--9. Appellants have not identified reversible errors. 3 Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 We agree with Appellants that Post teaches various electrically active fabrics, some with electrical components affixed to the outside of the fabric, see, e.g., Post, Fig. 1, and others with electrical components created by sewing, embroidering, or interweaving conductive threads into the fabric itself, see, e.g., Post, Figs. 2 (embroidered patches); Fig. 3 (strips 302, 304, 306, 312, 314, 316 sewn on the interior of fabric panels 300 and 310); Fig. 5A (pair of parallel conductive threads 502, 504 forming a capacitor sewn onto the fabric); Fig. 5B (embroidered patches 515, 517 forming plates of a capacitor). Post also discloses pre-forming a capacitor and attaching it to a fabric panel 500. Post, Fig. 5C; col. 11, 11. 12-15. Post suggests a variety of textile products including electronic components in various locations, external, internal, and interwoven into fabric panels. Post provides a suggestion for including electronic components in any of these locations including between fabric panels. Smith teaches an electric blanket with electric wires. Connecting electrical components, which Post shows are desirable in textile products for various uses, is suggested by the combination of the prior art. Further, the bonding pattern of Smith would hold in place the electronic structure of the combination. The bonding pattern 2 of Smith forms electric wire channels 5. Smith, Fig. 1; col. 5, 11. 43-52. The channels receive the electrical heating wires and position them so they are uniformly disposed across the length and width of the blanket shell. Smith, col. 1, 11. 12-22. The channels also prevent contact between adjacent wires. Id. Thus, the electronic structure suggested by the combination Smith and Post would be held in place in the fabric structure by the bonding pattern of Smith as required by claim 1. 4 Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 Appellants argue claim 2 separately. Claim 2 requires a bonding strength of the bonding segments be weaker than a tear strength of the fabric portions. Appellants contend that it is conventional wisdom to provide strong and durable bindings, and it would not have been obvious to have made Smith's fabric bonding strength weak. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Smith "notes that fusion bonding reduces the strength at the bonding area relative to the fabric at unbonded areas." Ans. 6, citing Smith, col. 1, 11. 60-66. Based on this teaching the Examiner finds that "it is reasonable to expect that the strength at the bonded areas would be less than the fabric strength at unbonded areas." Id. Smith as a whole does not support the Examiner's findings. According to Smith, the conventional method of forming channels for electric blanket shells is by weaving two shell fabrics together on a single loom. Smith, col. 1, 11. 23-37. Smith explains that needled blankets cannot be JOmed to make channels in the same manner and for these and other reasons needled fabrics have not been practical for producing electric blanket shells. Smith, col. 1, 11. 38-52. Smith notes that non-woven fabrics can be joined by fusion forming, and it is in reference to this non-woven fabric joining technique that Smith discloses that "[ fJusion bonding considerably reduces the strength and fibrous nature of the fabric in the vicinity of the fusion bond." Smith, col. 1, 11. 53---66. Smith also discusses fusion bonding of textile fabrics as defining "a weakened line or 'tear-line"' that is undesirable, but is somewhat mitigated by the nature of the woven fabric itself. Smith, col. 2, 1. 34 to col. 3, 1. 26. The strength of a fusion bonded woven fabric remains sufficient for many purposes, but needled fabric is seriously degraded when fusion bonded. Id. Smith states that 5 Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 fusion bonding by "sonic or ultra-sonic bonding of needled textile fabrics has not been generally accepted where the bonded fabric must provide a strong joint and can not exhibit a 'tear-line' effect." Smith, col. 3, 11. 22-26. Smith's invention is directed to fusion bonding needled textile fabrics to form an electric blanket shell that does not have the above difficulties. Smith, col. 3, 11. 27-30. There is no convincing evidence that one would have expected Smith's fusion bonded blanket shell to have bonding strength in the bonding segments weaker than the tear strength of the fabric portions. Smith forms the electric blanket shells with a pattern of fusion bonds, but "which provide a high level of confidence in the bond strength of the shell and essentially avoid a 'tear-line' effect." Smith, col. 3, 11. 36-42. We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as obvious over Smith in view of Post. Appellants do not add any additional arguments directed to the rejection of claims 13-15. Thus, Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of these claims. CONCLUSION We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 as obvious over Smith in view of Post, and the rejection of claims 13-15 as obvious over Smith, and Post, and further in view of Burr, but we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. 6 Appeal2016-002578 Application 14/362,730 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation