Ansell Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2020000915 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
14/451,544 08/05/2014 Christian Dapsalmon A0305 6521
99653 7590 12/17/2020
Moser Taboada / Ansell Limited
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
STEELE, JENNIFER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1796
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN DAPSALMON
Appeal 2020–000915
Application 14/451,544
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, and 21–29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ansell Limited.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000915
Application 14/451,544

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:

1. A composite yarn, comprising:
a blended core yarn, comprising:
about 90% high performance polyethylene stretch broken
technical fibers, and
about 10% inorganic, mineral, ceramic, or filament fibers
having a length substantially similar to a length of the high
performance polyethylene stretch broken technical fibers; and
at least one wrapping yarn comprising at least one of a
high tenacity polyamide or a high tenacity polyester, wherein the
at least one wrapping yarn is wrapped around the core to form
the composite yarn having an EN5 cut-resistance level and
having dimensions that enable the composite yarn to be knitted
with an18 gauge needle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Patrick US 2003/0074879 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Kolmes et al. (“Kolmes”) US 2007/0137164 A1 June 21, 2007
Hardee et al. (“Hardee”) US 2009/0183296 A1 July 23, 2009

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and dependent claims 2, 4–6, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 21–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Kolmes and Hardee.
Appeal 2020-000915
Application 14/451,544

3
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections. Accordingly, we reverse each of
the Examiner’s rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth in
the record by Appellant, with the following emphasis.

Rejection 1
It is the Examiner’s position that the phrase “having dimensions that
enable the composite yarn to be knitted with an 18 gauge needle” is
indefinite because it does not specify the size of the yarn such that the
claimed yarn can be distinguished from prior art. Final Act. 9. We agree
with Appellant that this phrase is not indefinite essentially for the reasons
provided on pages 5–7 of the Appeal Brief. As Appellant states, one skilled
in the art would understand with reasonable certainty the scope of the
dimensions of the composite yarn as being dimensions that enable the
composite yarn to be knitted with an 18 gauge needle. Appeal Br. 6. We
thus reverse Rejection 1.

Appeal 2020-000915
Application 14/451,544

4
Rejection 2
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erroneously relies
upon weight percentage calculations (Ans. 9) in an effort to meet the
claim requirements of a blended core yarn comprising “about 90% high
performance polyethylene stretch broken technical fibers, and about
10% inorganic, mineral, ceramic, or filament fibers”. As pointed out
by Appellant, these claim requirements are not in terms of weight
percentage, and are not taught or suggested by the applied art. Appeal
Br. 10–11. Reply Br. 5–6. We thus reverse Rejection 2.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
2, 4–6, 8, 9,
11 112(b)
2, 4–6, 8, 9,
11
1, 2, 4– 6, 8,
9, 11, 21–29 103
Patrick, Kolmes
and Hardee
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11, 21–29
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11, 21–29

REVERSED