3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

2019006485 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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.
15/535,566 06/13/2017 Andrew J. McGregor 76279US004 1015
32692 7590 05/29/2020
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
EKRAMI, YASAMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW J. MCGREGOR
and JAMES E. NASH
__________________

Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and WILLIAM A. CAPP,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4 and 6–16, which are all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies 3M Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A convective system, comprising:
an inflatable convective device having a single pneumatic
structure and two openings into the single pneumatic structure,
wherein at least part of the convective device is air permeable;
a hose manifold comprising:
a hose connector configured to connect to a hose,
two outlet connectors configured to connect to the two
openings respectively,
wherein the hose connector and the two output
connectors are in fluid connection,
wherein at least one of the two outlet connectors further
comprises a flexible flap configured to prevent slipping.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Farnworth (US 2006/0174392 A1, pub. Aug. 10, 2006),
Berke (US 5,304,213, iss. Apr. 19, 1994), and Oliver (US 2010/0076530 A1,
pub. Mar. 25, 2010).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Hooker (US 5,062,424, iss. Nov. 5, 1991).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Augustine ’596 (US 2003/0195596 A1, pub.
Oct. 16, 2003).
Claims 6–8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Arnold (US 6,679,432 B1, iss. Jan. 20, 2004).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Panser (US 2015/0335470 A1, pub. Nov. 26,
2015).
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

3
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Rose (US 2011/0095523 A1, pub. Apr. 28,
2011).
Claim 11–13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Augustine ’025 (US 5,824,025, iss. Oct. 20,
1998).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farnworth, Berke, Oliver, and Olsen (US 2011/0176273 A1, pub. July 21,
2011).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 14, and 15
Rejected over Farnworth, Berke, and Oliver
The Examiner finds that Farnworth teaches a convective system as
recited in claim 1 with an inflatable convective device, pneumatic structure
(cooling garment 1) with two openings to receive outlet connectors (hollow
elongate members 19, 20) configured to connect to the two openings, and a
hose manifold (Figure 7). Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4 (finding members 19, 20
connect to two separate openings in garment 1 as shown in Figure 1).2
The Examiner cites Berke to teach a pneumatic structure (blanket 70)
with an air pervious bottom layer 71 and an air impervious top layer 72 that
forms an air chamber in communication with two separate openings 73, 74.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious
to provide two openings in a single pneumatic structure of Farnworth for the
convenience of use by medical personnel as Berke teaches. Final Act. 4.

2 All citations to the Examiner’s Answer refer to the Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 28, 2019.
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

4
The Examiner cites Oliver to teach a cooling garment with an array of
tubes to pass heated/cooled fluid to heat or cool a wearer of the garment and
outlet connectors with a flexible flap to prevent slipping. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that “[r]eleasable latch 22, 34, 40, Fig. 4 which reads on the
claimed ‘flexible flap’ allows separation of a connector that connects tubes
to a source of heated/cooled liquid.” Ans. 4–5; see also Final Act. 4.
Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the connectors or elongated members of Farnworth
such that they comprise [a] flexible flap in the connectors or
elongate members for the purposes of releasably engaging with
the manifold and providing a connection between the single
pneumatic garment and the source of heating and cooling.

Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 4–5 (it would have been obvious to modify
Farnworth’s outlet connectors to add a flexible flap to releasably engage the
connectors at the connector or manifold with heated or cooled fluid).
Appellant argues that Oliver teaches an outlet connector as pipes 19a,
19b, but the flexible flap is positioned on a hose connector rather than outlet
connector pipes 19a, 19b and thus Oliver lacks a flexible flap on at least one
outlet connector as claimed. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that a skilled
artisan would not include a flexible flap on Farnworth’s outlet connector
because it is fixedly connected to the hose manifold and would not benefit
from a flexible flap. Id. Thus, a dispositive issue is whether the Examiner
has articulated a reason with rational underpinnings as to why it would have
been obvious, in view of the teachings of Oliver, to modify Farnworth
“wherein at least one of the two connectors further comprises a flexible flap
configured to prevent slipping” as claimed.
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

5
The claimed flexible flap prevents an outlet connector from slipping
from an opening of a pneumatic structure. Appellant’s Figures 8B and 8C
are reproduced below to illustrate the outlet connector and the flexible flap.

Figure 8B illustrates manifold 800B, hose connector 830B, and outlet
connectors 810B, 820B, which are configured to connect to openings in a
tubular convective device (annotated). Spec. ¶ 60.

Figure 8C illustrates hose manifold 830C with two outlet connectors
810C, 820C and flexible flaps 850C on each outlet connector. Id. ¶ 61.
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

6
Oliver teaches a release member 40 comprising first latch part 22 and
second latch part 34 as illustrated in Figure 4, which is reproduced below.

Oliver’s Figure 4 illustrates a connector comprising first part 15 with
first latch part 22 that releasably engages second latch part 34 of second part
17 to connect second part 17 and first part 15. Oliver ¶¶ 15–21.
Pipes 19a, 19b are comparable to the claimed “outlet connectors” as
they connect to openings in inlet tube 13 and outlet tube 14 that pass heated
or cooled fluid to vest 10 to heat or cool a wearer of that garment. Id. ¶¶ 12–
15. Figure 4 above illustrates the pipes with a circumferential flange or flap
that retains the tubes on the pipes.3 See id. ¶ 15.
Even if first latch part 22 and second latch part 34 are considered to be
“a flexible flap,” they do not prevent an outlet connector from slipping as
claimed. They connect first part 15 with its pipes 19a, 19b and tubes 13, 14
to second part 17 with its pipes 30a, 30b and tubes. Id. ¶¶ 15–20.

3 Appellant’s Specification describes alternative structure of the flexible flap
as a ridge or flange of flexible material that encircles an entire circumference
of the hose manifold. Spec. ¶ 61.
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

7
To the extent the Examiner relies on first or second latch part 22, 34
individually to teach a “flexible flap,” neither flap by itself is configured to
prevent slipping of parts 15, 17 or any other element. Instead, first latch part
22 is configured to engage second latch part 34 to connect parts 15, 17. Id.
When first part 15 is connected to second part 17, head 23 on first latch part
22 engages head 35 of second latch part 34 to prevent latches 22, 34 and
parts 15, 17 from being disengaged. Id. ¶ 23. Therefore, each latch part 22,
34 is “configured to prevent slipping” of the other latch part.
We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated
to include such a latch on Farnworth’s outlet connector(s) 19, 20 to prevent
either outlet connector 19, 20 from slipping from an opening in garment 1.
Farnworth illustrates outlet connectors 19, 20 inserted through openings in
outer gas impermeable substrate 2 of cooling garment 1 in Figure 1. It is not
clear how placing either latch 22, 34 on either outlet connector 19, 20 would
prevent either outlet connector 19, 20 from slipping out of an opening in
cooling garment 1 when each latch 22, 34 is configured to engage the other
latch rather than a substrate or garment. Nor are we persuaded that a skilled
artisan would have been motivated to include a second latch on a substrate
or garment 1 of Farnworth to engage a first latch on an outlet connector 19,
20 when Oliver forms each latch 22, 34 as part of a housing 21, 28 of each
respective part 15, 17 of connector 16. See id. ¶¶ 12–20, Figs. 4, 5.
Configuring Farnworth’s outlet connectors 19, 20 with a flexible flap
that releasably engages the connectors at the connector or manifold with the
source of heated or cooled fluid as the Examiner proposes (Final Act. 4–5;
Ans. 5) does not teach a flexible flap configured to prevent slipping of the
outlet connector from an opening in a pneumatic structure as claimed.
Appeal 2019-006485
Application 15/535,566

8
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims 2, 14,
and 15, which depend therefrom.
Rejections of Dependent Claims 3, 4, 6–13, and 16
The Examiner’s reliance on Hooker, Augustine ’596, Arnold, Panser,
Rose, Augustine ’025, and Olsen to teach features of claims 3, 4, 6–13, and
16 does not overcome the above-noted deficiencies of Farnworth, Berke, and
Oliver as to claim 1 from which these claims depend. See Final Act. 5–12.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 14,
15
103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver
1, 2, 14, 15
3 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Hooker
3
4 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Augustine ’596
4
6–8 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Arnold
6–8
9 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Panser
9
10 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Rose
10
11–13 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Augustine ’025
11–13
16 103 Farnworth, Berke,
Oliver, Olsen
16
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–16

REVERSED