Randi Moritz

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2020

2020001735 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2020)

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.
13/991,519 06/04/2013 Randi Hollyn Moritz 0605.1001 9343
49455 7590 10/26/2020
STEIN IP, LLC
1990 M STREET, NW
SUITE 610
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
FERREIRA, CATHERINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2020 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):
docketing@steinip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDI HOLLYN MORITZ

Appeal 2020-001735
Application 13/991,519
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16–19
and 21–36. We REVERSE.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “[T]he real party in interest is the
inventor.” (Appeal Br. 1.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). An oral hearing
was held on October 15, 2020.
Appeal 2020-001735
Application 13/991,519

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“This invention relates to a belt, a buckle coupled with a strap to form
the belt[,] and a strap coupled with the buckle to form the belt.” (Spec.
p1:2–3.)
Illustrative Claim
16. A belt comprising:
a strap extending between a first end and a second end,
the strap, having a thickness and comprising at least one
locking hole extending through the strap and at least one
fastening opening also extending through the strap;
a buckle, removably coupled to the strap only by first and
second elements, the buckle comprising:
a substantially plate shaped main body with a first and
second face,
a first fastening element comprising a tongue supported
by said first face of said main body and projecting away from
said main body to form a free end to engage the locking hole in
the strap,
a second fastening element protruding from the first face
of said main body for removably coupling the buckle and the
strap;
wherein the second fastening element comprises a first
portion having a predetermined shape and sized to match the
fastening opening in the strap.

References
Higinbotom US 154,673 September 1, 1874
Sutton US 2,419,662 April 17, 1944
Stein US 2,783,516 March 5, 1957
Stevens US 2007/0094776 A1 May 3, 2007

Appeal 2020-001735
Application 13/991,519

3
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 16–19 and 21–35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as indefinite. (Final Action 3.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 16–19 and 32–36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Sutton. (Final Action 5.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sutton and Stevens. (Final Action 11.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sutton and Higinbotom. (Final Action 12.)
V. The Examiner rejects claims 28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sutton and Stein. (Final Action 9.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 16 is the only independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal depending directly or ultimately therefrom. (See Appeal
Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 16 sets forth “[a] belt” comprising “a
buckle” and “a strap.” (Id.)
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that independent claim 16 is indefinite (see
Final Action 3); and the Appellant argues that this determination by the
Examiner is not sufficiently supported by the record (see Appeal Br. 3–5).
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s position.
Independent claim 16 requires the buckle to comprise “a substantially
plate shaped main body.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) According to the
Examiner, the term “substantially plate shaped” renders “the claim indefinite
because it is unclear what structural element or configuration of elements” is
Appeal 2020-001735
Application 13/991,519

4
covered by this term. (Final Action 3.) However, as noted by the Appellant
(see Appeal Br. 4), the Specification defines “a substantially plate shaped
structure” as a structure in which “one of the dimensions” is “substantially
negligible compared to its other two dimensions.” (Spec. p5:13–14.)
The Examiner maintains that “[t]here are several different shapes a
plate is capable of having,” and thus it is unclear “[w]hich shape is the
applicant claiming.” (Id., bolding omitted.) The Examiner explains that a
plate can be “circular” or “square,” and that “a plate is not always flat.”
(Answer 3.) But this explanation by the Examiner only establishes that
independent claim 16 is broad enough to cover circular, square, flat, and
non-flat structures. We agree with the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 4) that this
geometric range goes to the claim’s breadth, not its indefiniteness. (See e.g.,
In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971) (“[B]readth is not to be
equated with indefiniteness”).)3
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16, and claims 17–19 and 21–35 depending therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
Rejection II
The Examiner determines that independent claim 16 is anticipated by
Sutton (see Final Action 5); and the Appellant argues to the contrary (see
Appeal Br. 5–8). We are persuaded by the Appellant’s position.

3 The Examiner also implies that “the main body can be any of the belt[’]s
parts.” (Answer 3.) However, independent claim 16 specifies that it is the
buckle (which is “removably coupled to the strap”) that comprises the
“substantially plate shaped main body.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Appeal 2020-001735
Application 13/991,519

5
Independent claim 16 requires the buckle to be “removably coupled to
the strap only by first and second elements.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.,
emphasis added.) Thus, claim 16, by virtue of the word only, requires that
there be no more than first and second fastening elements. According to the
Examiner, Sutton discloses a belt in which a buckle 18 is removably
attached to a strap 15 “only by first and second elements (34, 35).” (Final
Action 5.) However, as noted by the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 6), in
Sutton’s belt, the buckle 18 is coupled to the strap 15 by at least elements 33,
34, and 35. (See Sutton c3:13–29.) In other words, Sutton’s elements 33,
34, and 35, which the Examiner’s labeled drawings tacitly portray as three
different fastening elements (see Final Action 6, Answer 14), result in
Sutton’s buckle 18 being coupled to its strap 15 by more than (i.e., not only)
first and second elements (34, 35).4
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16, and claims 17–19 and 32–36 depending therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejections III–V
The Examiner determines that dependent claims 21–23 and 28–31
would have been obvious over Sutton in view of Stevens, Higinbotom, or
Stein. (See Final Action 9–12). These determinations rely upon a finding
that Sutton discloses a belt in which the buckle is removably coupled to a
strap by only first and second elements (34, 35). (See id.) As discussed

4 The Examiner maintains that “while 34, and 35 do act as coupling
devices 31 does too.” (Answer 14.) We do not see how this addresses the
Appellant’s argument that elements 34 and 35 are not the only elements
which removably couple Sutton’s buckle 18 to its strap 15.
Appeal 2020-001735
Application 13/991,519

6
above, we are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that this finding by the
Examiner is flawed; and the Examiner’s further findings with respect to the
secondary references do not compensate for this flaw.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 21–23 and 28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–19,
21–35
112 Indefinite 16–19, 21–35
16–19,
32–36
102 Sutton 16–19, 32–36
21, 22 103 Sutton, Stevens 21, 22
23 103 Sutton,
Higinbotom
23
28–31 103 Sutton, Stein 28–31
Overall
Outcome
16–19, 21–36

REVERSED