2020003105 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020)

Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 27, 2020

2020003105 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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. 15/886,990 02/02/2018 Dorothy Chin Gerding A2010.70818US01 3791 23628 7590 11/27/2020 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. 600 ATLANTIC AVENUE BOSTON, MA 02210-2206 EXAMINER VENNE, DANIEL V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2020 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): Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com WGS_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOROTHY CHIN GERDING Appeal 2020-003105 Application 15/886,990 Technology Center 3600 Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, BRANDON J. WARNER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, 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 1–5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003105 Application 15/886,990 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a flotation device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An adjustable seat for a flotation device for a child, comprising[:] a seat member made of flexible material attached to and depending from the flotation device, said seat having two apertures therein for receipt of legs of a child; and an adjustment strap having two ends, each end being attached to the flotation device, with the adjustment strap extending under the seat, whereby dimensions of the seat may be selectively changed by adjusting a length of said adjustment strap so as to accommodate the size of the child. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Barnes US 2,562,080 July 24, 1951 Elsholz US 5,718,612 Feb. 17, 1998 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes and Elsholz. OPINION The Examiner finds that Barnes teaches each feature recited in claim 1, other than the “adjustment strap.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that Elsholz teaches the recited adjustment strap and proposes modifying the teachings of Barnes accordingly. Id. at 3. Claim 1 requires that “dimensions of the seat may be selectively changed by adjusting a length of said adjustment strap so as to accommodate Appeal 2020-003105 Application 15/886,990 3 the size of the child.” Appellant’s strap is separate from the seat. The “dimensions of the seat” are “selectively changed” by the strap engaging a bottom of the seat such that the seat bottom rests on the strap, rather than hanging freely. See, e.g., Spec. 4; Figs. 1–5, 8. Appellant contends that “there is no indication that the seat [in Elsholz] depends from the tube or that its size may be adjusted to accommodate users of various sizes.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive. Figure 5 from Elsholz is reproduced below. Figure 5 is a bottom view of Elsholz’s personal watercraft shelter. Elsholz, 3:26–27. Elsholz explains that “[a] seat support strap 31 holds the front of the seat 16 taut.” Id. at 3:61–62. “[R]ear strap 50 . . . stretch[es] underneath the bottom surface 28 of the tube 12 and end[s] near the seat support strap Appeal 2020-003105 Application 15/886,990 4 31” and “[a] buckle 66 provides adjustment in the serviceable length of the rear strap 50.” Id. at 4:58–61. Elsholz explains that “rear strap 50 not only secures the shelter 10 to the tube 12, it also transfers the force of the user’s weight from the seat to the longitudinal rod 38” of the shelter assembly. Id. at 4:65–67. That is, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, when adjusted, rear strap supports the weight of the user, just like Appellant’s strap, thereby adjusting the overall seat depth, just like Appellant’s strap. In response to the Examiner’s rationale regarding the “addition of a cover similar to Elsholz with Barnes to facilitate protection of the child from the potential harmful effects of direct exposure to sunlight” (Ans. 4), Appellant contends that “the canopy in Elsholz would provide no such protection because the top panels 34 in Elsholz are ‘formed from clearl[] vinyl.’” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive because it is not an accurate characterization of Elsholz’s teachings, which explain that “panels 34, 36, 37, and 39 may be tinted.” Elsholz, 4:7–9 (emphasis added). Appellant does not provide separate arguments for claims 2–5. For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5 103 Barnes, Elsholz 1–5 Appeal 2020-003105 Application 15/886,990 5 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED