Ex Parte 6964688 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2011

90009387 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2011)

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.
90/009,387 01/20/2009 6964688 OHI 1717-063G 9092
8698 7590 09/26/2011
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
EXAMINER
DAWSON, GLENN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY
Appellant
____________

Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, SALLY G. LANE, and
RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

2
Ohio Willow Wood Company, the owner of the patent under
reexamination,
1
appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from a final
rejection of claims 1-13, 16-32, 35-51, and 54-71 (Appeal Brief filed
December 6, 2010, hereinafter “App. Br.,” at 4; Final Office Action mailed
April 26, 2010).
2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The current reexamination of the „688 Patent was ordered on April 7,
2009 based on a Third-Party Request for Reexamination filed by Dr. Aldo
A. Laghi on January 20, 2009.
In addition to the three earlier merged reexamination proceedings, the
„688 Patent is (or has been) the subject of several civil actions, namely: The
Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. ALPS South Corp., Case No. 2:05-cv-01039 (S.D.
Ohio); The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. DAW Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:05-
cv-01038 (S.D. Ohio); ALPS South Corp. v. The Ohio Willow Wood Co.,
Case No. 2:09-cv-1027 (S.D. Ohio); and The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v.
Fillauer Cos., Inc., et al., 2:06-cv-00108 (S.D. Ohio) (App. Br. 2-3).

1
United States Patent 6,964,688 C1 originally issued to Bruce G. Kania on
November 15, 2005 based on Application 09/418,505 filed October 15, 1999
(hereinafter the “„688 Patent”). A Reexamination Certificate was issued on
January 13, 2009 based on three earlier merged reexamination proceedings –
namely, Reexamination Control Nos. 90/008,271 filed October 5, 2006,
90/008,578 filed May 9, 2007, and 90/008,979 filed January 2, 2008.
2
The Examiner indicated that claims 14, 15, 33, 34, 52, 53, and 72 recite
patentable subject matter (Final Office Action at 33-34).
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

3
We heard oral arguments on July 20, 2011, a written transcript of
which was entered into the record on August 8, 2011.
3
At oral argument, the
Patent Owner‟s counsel produced various specimens including three
versions of the ICEROSS prior art product solely as a visual aid (Hr‟g. Tr. 4,
11-12).
The invention claimed in the „688 Patent relates to a tube-shaped
covering for enclosing a limb amputation stump. To aid in visualizing the
invention, we reproduce below an embodiment of the invention as shown in
Figure 12 of the „688 Patent:

3
Oral arguments for the current appeal were consolidated with arguments
for two other reexamination appeals, namely 2011-007063 (Control
90/009,310; United States Patent 7,291,182 B1) and 2011-010158 (Control
90/009,268; United States Patent 5,830,237 C1).
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

4

Figure 12 above depicts a “cushion locking liner with reinforcement”
including an adapter (in this case a threaded insert) that is secured (in this
case by molding) to a fabric using urethane polymer (col. 6, ll. 1-2; col. 9, ll.
14-21).
Claim 1 on appeal read as follows:
1. A tube-shaped covering for enclosing an amputation
stump, said covering configured to have an open end for
introduction of said stump and a closed end opposite said open
end, said covering comprising fabric having a coating of
polymeric material residing on only an interior surface thereof,
said polymeric material capable of forming an air-tight seal
with a limb of a wearer when said covering is donned, and an
adapter secured to said fabric at said closed end of said
covering, said adapter for coupling said covering to a socket
portion of a prosthesis.
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

5
(App. Br. 43, Claims App‟x.)

The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability (Examiner‟s Answer mailed February 1, 2011, hereinafter
“Ans.,” 3-4, 6):
Peterson 2,202,598 May 28, 1940
Klasson 4,923,474 May 8, 1990
Rudy 5,083,361 Jan. 28, 1992
Caspers 5,258,037 Nov. 2, 1993
Quantrille 5,334,446 Aug. 2, 1994
Faulkner 5,376,129 Dec. 27, 1994
Zook 5,497,789 Mar. 12, 1996
Pohlig 5,507,836 Apr. 16, 1996
Chen 5,633,286 May 27, 1997
Haberman 5,888,216 Mar. 30, 1999
O. Kristinsson, The ICEROSS Concept: A Discussion of a Philosophy,
17 PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL 49-55 (1993)
(hereinafter “ICEROSS”).
The Patent Owner‟s “admitted prior art [regarding the Silosheath
commercial product] as explained in the court decision” attached to the
Examiner‟s Answer.
4

4
The record is unclear as to which specific Silosheath printed publication, if
any, forms the subject of the Patent Owner‟s “admitted prior art.” The
district court‟s “Order Granting Defendant‟s Motion for Summary
Judgment” (page 5) refers to a “Court‟s Ex. 1,” which “is representative of a
Silosheath sold in 1994” (emphasis added), but the Examiner has not
identified when and where “Court‟s Ex. 1” was entered into the current
proceeding. We have located in the electronic record of this proceeding at
least three printed publications in the form of what appear to be
advertisements or product brochures describing “Silosheath,” but we are
unsure whether any of these correspond to “Court‟s Ex. 1.” In reviewing the
district court‟s “Document 103” (copy attached), it appears that “Court‟s Ex.
1” refers to a physical specimen. Adding to the confusion, the Patent Owner
submits what it prepared and identified as “Exhibit R1” (Reply Brief filed
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

6
The Patent Owner relied upon the following in rebuttal (Evid. App‟x,
App. Br. 55):
Ex. A – Request for Reexamination filed January 20, 2009.
Ex. B – Excerpts from the Trial Transcript of The Ohio Willow
Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., Case No. 9:07cv274 (E.D. Tex.).
Ex. C – Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination
Certificate in Reexamination Control Nos. 90/008,578,
90/008,271, and 90/008,979.
Ex. D – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Jean-Paul
Comtesse in The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. ALPS South Corp.,
Case No. C2 04 1233 (S.D. Ohio).
Ex. E – ICEROSS.
Ex. F – Decl. of Bruce Kania filed July 26, 2007 in
Reexamination Control 90/008,271.
Ex. G – Excerpts from Decl. of Robert Arbogast filed in The
Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., Case No. 9:07-CV-
00274 (E.D. Tex.).
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 50, 51, 55, 56,
61-63, 65, and 69 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in
view of Klasson/ICEROSS” (Ans. 6-13);
II. Claims 3, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 44, 70, and 71 as
“unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of

April 1, 2011 at 10), which includes a small, grainy drawing or photograph
of what is identified as “SILOSHEATH” and argumentations below it.
Therefore, it is difficult for us to evaluate the relied-upon admissions in the
proper context of the actual underlying prior art forming the basis of the
Examiner‟s rejections.
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

7
Klasson/ICEROSS, as applied above and further in view
of either Pohlig or Peterson” (Ans. 13-15);
III. Claims 4, 6, 7, 25, 35, 39, 40, 43, and 64 as
“unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claims 1and 2 above,
and further in view of Rudy” (Ans. 15-18);
IV. Claims 5 and 38 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath as
modified by Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Chen and Rudy” (Ans. 18-
19);
V. Claims 8, 9, 41, and 42 as “unpatentable over the
Silosheath as modified by Klasson/ICEROSS as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faulkner”-
5376129” (Ans. 19-20);
VI. Claims 10 and 54 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath as
modified by Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or
Peterson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view
of Faulkner” (Ans. 20-21);
VII. Claims 11 and 48 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath as
modified by Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Quantrille” (Ans. 21);
VIII. Claims 17, 21, 22, 57, 59, and 60 as “unpatentable over
the Silosheath in view of Klasson/ICEROSS and Rudy as
applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of
Faulkner” (Ans. 22);
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

8
IX. Claims 20 and 58 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in
view of Klasson/ICEROSS, Chen and Rudy, as applied
to claim 5 above, and further in view of Faulkner” (Ans.
23);
X. Claim 27 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 2 above, and
further in view of Caspers” (Ans. 23-24);
XI. Claims 28, 29, 67, and 68 as “unpatentable over the
Silosheath in view of Klasson/ICESROSS as applied to
claim 2 above, and further in view of Haberman or Zook”
(Ans. 24);
XII. Claim 45 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or Peterson as
applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Caspers”
(Ans. 25-26);
XIII. Claims 46 and 47 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in
view of Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or Peterson
as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
Haberman or Zook” (Ans. 26-27);
XIV. Claim 49 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or Peterson as
applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
Quantrille” (Ans. 27); and
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

9
XV. Claim 66 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Caspers” (Ans. 28).

ISSUES
Referring to The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., Case
No. 9:07-CV-00274 (E.D. Tex.), the Examiner asserts (Ans. 6):
[P]atentee has admitted that the Silosheath (courts ex. 1 –
Document 103) is prior art and that it teaches two elements of
claim 1: the sheath is for enclosing an amputation stump or
residual limb; the sheath has an open end for introduction of a
stump and an opposite closed end; Patentee also admitted that
the Silosheath had a gel which substantially conforms to the
shape of the stump when worn.
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that the Silosheath prior art differs in
two respects. First, the Examiner states that “the gel [in Silosheath] appears
to be both on the inner surface of the nylon fabric material and also bleeds
through to the outer surface of the fabric material” (Ans. 7). Second, the
Examiner acknowledges that the “Silosheath also fails to disclose an adapter
secured . . . to an exterior surface of the fabric covering at the closed end of
the covering for coupling the covering to a socket of a prosthesis” (Ans. 10).
Regarding the adapter secured to the fabric (second difference), the
Examiner relied on the discussion of the prior art in the „688 Patent at
column 9, lines 19-47, and Klasson‟s teachings (Ans. 10). On these bases,
the Examiner concluded that “[w]hen the outer layer of the liner is fabric, as
is the case with the combination of the Silosheath and Klasson/ICEROSS,
the securing . . . of the adapter to the fabric is nothing more than an
application of a known technique to known prior art” (Ans. 10).
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

10
As a procedural matter, the Patent Owner first argues that “the
Silosheath in view of the Klasson patent . . . and the commercial
embodiment of the Klasson patent known as the ICEROSS sleeve fails to
raise a SNQP [substantial new question of patentability] as to the rejected
claims of the „688 patent” (App. Br. 13). On the substantive merits, the
Patent Owner contends, inter alia, that “one of ordinary skill in the art could
not have combined the elements as claimed by known methods because . . .
there were no known methods for attaching a claimed insert to a fabric
covering” (App. Br. 17). According to the Patent Owner, “[t]here is
absolutely no support in any of the references, alone or combined, for [the
Examiner‟s] conclusion [that attaching an adapter to the fabric would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art] – and the Examiner has
offered none” (Reply Brief filed April 1, 2011 at 17).
Based on these contentions, the dispositive issue in this appeal is:
Did the Examiner identify a reason that would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art elements in the
manner claimed in the „688 Patent – i.e., secure an adapter (for coupling the
claimed covering to a socket portion of a prosthesis) to the fabric of the
claimed covering?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. The „688 Patent states that “the invention cushion locking liner
comprises docking means for attaching an external device, etc.
to the liner” (col. 9, ll. 9-11):
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

11
2. According to the „688 Patent, “[s]uch docking means includes
pins, cables, straps, Velcro
®
(hook and loop type fasteners),
snaps, buckles, buttons, etc. and typically those which help to
attach and support a prosthetic device” (col. 9, ll. 11-14) .
3. Regarding the “docking means,” the „688 Patent states (col. 9,
ll. 14-23; emphasis added):
Some of these docking means are known in the art
and are preferably incorporated in the cushion
locking liner by means of direct molding, meaning
the molding of an adapter into the fabric possibly
by injection, compression, etc. molding, etc. using,
preferably, urethane such as an 80 Shore A
urethane (Smooth-On PMC-780) after the gel is
molded to the fabric. See FIG. 12. Such docking
means, including distal inserts, can be centered or
can be offset to accommodate individual residual
limb geometries.
4. The „688 Patent describes additional embodiments in which a
docking means (e.g., VELCRO
®
) is provided on the side of the
covering (col. 9, ll. 23-47; element 3 of Figure 12).
5. Figure 9 of the „688 Patent is reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

12

Figure 9 above depicts a “locking liner with docking
means at the distal end thereof,” where the insert is
molded to fabric disposed on the exterior of the liner (i.e.,
covering) at a closed end of the tube-shaped covering
(col. 5, ll. 61-62).
6. Klasson‟s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

13

Klasson‟s Figure 1 above illustrates a substantially frusto-
conical sleeve 1 adapted to be applied to, for example, the
stump of an amputated arm or leg, where 2 denotes a coupling
means for coupling of the sleeve 1 at the distal end with a
prosthesis, if desired (col. 6, ll. 9-20)
7. Klasson teaches that the sleeve 1 is “made of a relatively highly
elastic material, e.g., silicone (silicone is a term for so-called
silicon plastics or polysiloxanes)” (col. 6, ll. ll. 11-13).
8. According to Klasson, “reinforcement 4 and/or other inelastic
reinforcement may, if desired, completely or partially be
applied to the outside of the sleeve, which will prevent
longitudinal stretching “ and “such an outer reinforcement layer
may be made friction reducing for the sleeve to be more easily
inserted into a prosthetic sleeve or the like” (col. 6, l. 63 to col.
7, l. 2).

Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

14
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Supreme Court of the United States explained that “a patent
composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
“Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent
application that claims . . . the combination of two known devices according
to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill . . . to combine the elements
in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. While the Supreme Court
warned against “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to
common sense,” it also stated that the “factfinder should be aware . . . of the
distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant
upon ex post reasoning.” Id. at 421.
“It is necessary to consider everything appellants have said about what
is prior art to determine the exact scope of their admission.” In re Nomiya,
509 F.2d 566, 571 (CCPA 1975).

ANALYSIS
We cannot affirm the Examiner‟s rejections.
Each of the claims on appeal requires an adapter secured to the fabric
at a closed end of the claimed covering for the purpose of coupling the
covering to a socket portion of prosthesis. Such an adapter may be provided
in the form of a distal insert or docking means as shown in Figure 9 (FF 5)
or a threaded insert as shown in Figure 12, both reproduced above.
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

15
In concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to modify Silosheath to include an adapter secured to
fabric, the Examiner appears to have misunderstood the inventor‟s
discussion regarding the adapters or docking means. Specifically, the „688
Patent enumerates exemplary docking means that may be used to couple the
liner (covering) with a prosthetic device (FF 1, 2). The „688 Patent does
acknowledge that “[s]ome of the docking means are known in the art” (FF
3). But that is the extent of the inventor‟s admission (FF 3). The relied-
upon disclosure of the „688 Patent does not say that the securement of such
known docking means to the fabric of a covering was also known in the art.
Nomiya, 509 F.2d at 571.
The Examiner asserts that “[t]here would have been a myriad of
different attachment techniques available to the skilled artisan and the
examiner concludes that molding the insert to the fabric would have been an
obvious attachment method at the time of the invention” (Ans. 36). The
Examiner, however, has not directed us to sufficient evidence or other
reasoning to support a finding that such “myriad of different attachment
techniques” to the fabric of the sleeve were known to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention. The Examiner concluded that
attachment to the fabric would have been obvious, but did not provide an
adequate evidentiary basis for this conclusion. Absent such evidence or
reasoning, we cannot say that the Examiner “identif[ied] a reason that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill . . . to combine the elements in the
way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

16
The Examiner‟s reliance on the „688 Patent disclosure at column 9,
lines 23-47 does not cure the deficiency in the proposed combination of
references. That disclosure has not been shown to be an admission (FF 4).
Moreover, the relied-upon disclosure relates to alternative embodiments that
are not particularly relevant to an adapter that is secured to fabric at a closed
end of the covering.
The relied-upon disclosure of Klasson is equally unavailing. While
Klasson does teach the provision of coupling means 2 disposed at a closed
end of a conical sleeve, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
such a coupling means could successfully be secured to fabric.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Examiner erred in failing to
identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the prior art elements in the manner claimed in the „688
Patent.
Because we have reversed the rejections on the merits, we need not
address the SNQP question.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner‟s rejections of:
I. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 50, 51, 55, 56,
61-63, 65, and 69 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in
view of Klasson/ICEROSS” (Ans.6-13);
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

17
II. Claims 3, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 44, 70, and 71 as
“unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS, as applied above and further in view
of either Pohlig or Peterson” (Ans. 13-15);
III. Claims 4, 6, 7, 25, 35, 39, 40, 43, and 64 as
“unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claims 1and 2 above,
and further in view of Rudy” (Ans. 15-18);
IV. Claims 5 and 38 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath as
modified by Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Chen and Rudy” (Ans. 18-
19);
V. Claims 8, 9, 41, and 42 as “unpatentable over the
Silosheath as modified by Klasson/ICEROSS as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faulkner”-
5376129” (Ans. 19-20);
VI. Claims 10 and 54 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath as
modified by Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or
Peterson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view
of Faulkner” (Ans. 20-21);
VII. Claims 11 and 48 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath as
modified by Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Quantrille” (Ans. 21);
VIII. Claims 17, 21, 22, 57, 59, and 60 as “unpatentable over
the Silosheath in view of Klasson/ICEROSS and Rudy as
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

18
applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of
Faulkner” (Ans. 22);
IX. Claims 20 and 58 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in
view of Klasson/ICEROSS, Chen and Rudy, as applied
to claim 5 above, and further in view of Faulkner” (Ans.
23);
X. Claim 27 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 2 above, and
further in view of Caspers” (Ans. 23-24);
XI. Claims 28, 29, 67, and 68 as “unpatentable over the
Silosheath in view of Klasson/ICESROSS as applied to
claim 2 above, and further in view of Haberman or Zook”
(Ans. 24);
XII. Claim 45 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or Peterson as
applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Caspers”
(Ans. 25-26);
XIII. Claims 46 and 47 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in
view of Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or Peterson
as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
Haberman or Zook” (Ans. 26-27);
XIV. Claim 49 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS and either Pohlig or Peterson as
applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
Quantrille” (Ans. 27); and
Appeal 2011-008483
Reexamination Control 90/009,387
Patent 6,964,688 C1

19
XV. Claim 66 as “unpatentable over the Silosheath in view of
Klasson/ICEROSS as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Caspers” (Ans. 28),
are reversed.
Therefore, the Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 1-13, 16-32, 35-
51, and 54-71 is reversed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
REVERSED

rvb

PATENT OWNER:

ERIC M. GAYAN
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
DUBLIN, OHIO 43017

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

DR. ALDO A. LAGHI
c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI
SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
101 EAST KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 2800
TAMPA, FL 33602
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
THE OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
THERMO-PLY, INC.
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 9:07-CV-274
JUDGE RON CLARK
ORDER
On April 17, 2009, a Silosheath was jointly submitted, at the court’s request, by Plaintiff
The Ohio Willow Wood Company, Defendant Thermo-Ply, Inc., and Intervenor Coastal Liners,
Inc. See Doc. # 73. According to the parties, this Silosheath was continuously in the custody of
OWW or its counsel between February 27, 1998 and the date it was submitted to the court. Id. at
p. 1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Silosheath be labeled as “Court’s Ex. 1” and
shall be part of the record in this case.
Case 9:07-cv-00274-RC Document 103 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 1 of 1