Ex Parte Avula et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13314289 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/314,289 12/08/2011
59582 7590 09/12/2016
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ramesh R. A vula
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
710240-5858 1053
EXAMINER
SIMMONS, KLEES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMESH R. A VULA, CASSIE M. MALLOY,
and ELLEN M. BACON
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and JEFFREY
R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims drawn to a textile sleeve for routing and
protecting elongate members. Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 7 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The rejections are affirmed.
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims stand rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious in view of Pithouse (U.S. Pat. No. 4,639,545, issued Jan. 27,
1987).
There are two independent claims on appeal, claims 1 and 6. Claim 1
is representative and is reproduced below:
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
1. A textile sleeve for routing and protecting elongate
members, comprising:
an elongate textile inner wall of weft knit yam, said wall
having an inner surface and an outer surface, said inner surface
providing a generally tubular cavity in which the elongate
members are received, said inner surface including, at least in
part, laid-in yam that provides a dampening, non-abrasive
surface for contact with the elongate members, wherein at least
some of said laid-in yam is a polymeric yam of a low melt
polymer; and an impervious elastomeric coating on said outer
surface of said inner wall.
CLAIM INTERPRET A TI ON
Claim 1 is directed to a textile sleeve. The sleeve comprises 1) an
elongate textile inner wall of weft knit yam; and 2) an impervious
elastomeric coating on the outer surface of the inner wall.
The 1) inner wall has an inner surface "including, at least in part, [a]
laid-in yam that provides a dampening, non-abrasive surface for contact with
the elongate members, wherein [b] at least some of said laid-in yam is a
polymeric yam of a low melt polymer."
We begin with the interpretation of "laid-in yam." During patent
examination:
[the] PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, the Specification has the following guidance on the
meaning of laid-in yam:
2
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
During the circular weft knitting process, in addition to
interlinking yams with the desired type of knit stitch, at least
one end of yam is weft inserted, also referred to as being laid-
in, with the laid-in yam 28 providing at least a portion of, or the
entire or substantially entire inner surface 18.
Spec. if 14. Thus, we interpret "laid-in" yam as corresponding to the weft
knit stitch in a knit textile. 1
The claim also requires that the "laid-in yam is a polymeric yam of a
low melt polymer." The Specification does not define a "low melt polymer"
or provide an example of one. However, the Specification states that "the
[polymeric] low melt yam can be heated to melt or at least partially melt and
bond at least a portion of the inner surface 18 via a bond/weld joint 30 to the
elongate member 14." Id., if 15 (on p. 6). Thus, a low melt polymer is
capable of melting to form a bond or weld joint with the elongate member.
The claim also requires that the laid-in yam provides a "dampening,
non-abrasive" surface. Dampening is not defined in the Specification, but
the Specification teaches that "a dampening property [is] to facilitate
absorbing vibrations, which in tum, reduces the frictional wear of the
elongate members being protected." Id., if 4. The Specification also teaches
that the laid-in yam provides "a soft, nonabrasive inner surface for
dampening contact with the elongate members being protected." Id., 8. In
other words, the "dampening" property is imparted by providing a soft, non-
abrasive weft yam.
1 A weave can have a "warp" stitch and a "weft" stitch, which are two
different types of stitches used in knitting. See Pithouse, col. 2, 11. 63---64.
3
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Pithouse describes a textile sleeve around a
cable, where the cable serves as the elongate member of claim 1. Final Rej.
2. The Examiner found that the sleeve comprises 1) an inner surface
comprising weft insert knit, corresponding to the "laid-in yam" of claim 1.
Id., 2-3. The Examiner also found that Pithouse teaches that the sleeve can
have 2) "an impervious laminate (Claim 14) in the form of an elastomeric
coating (Example 7) that may be an external layer (col. 10, lines: 1-15)" as
required by claim 1. Id., 3. With respect to the claimed requirement that the
yam provides "a dampening, non-abrasive surface," the Examiner found that
Pithouse describes the sleeve as insulating and thus inherently would be non-
abrasive. Id. Alternatively, the Examiner stated that it would have been
obvious to have provided a non-abrasive surface in order to not degrade the
cable's performance. Id. The Examiner also found that Pithouse describes
"adhesive with a low melting point (C6, L45-50) that is embedded in a
fabric strip and knitted into the fabric (C6, L55-60)," which constitutes "a
polymeric yam of a low melt polymer" as required by the claim. Id.
Laid-in weft yarn
Claim 1 requires the textile sleeve to have an inner surface comprising
a "laid-in yam." We interpreted "laid-in yam" to correspond to a weft stitch
in a knit textile. The laid-in yam is required by the claim to be "a polymeric
yam of a low melt polymer."
Appellants acknowledge that "Pithouse teaches [a sleeve comprising]
two types of yam, conductive fibers extending in one direction and
recoverable fibers extending in an opposite direction, with a possibility of
4
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
both types of fibers, conductive and recoverable, extending in both
directions (Col. 2, lines 51-56)." Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants
contend that the recoverable fibers are utilized as the laid-in weft stitch. Id.
They argue that these fibers are not described as comprising a low melt
polymer and thus do not meet the claimed requirement of laid-in yam made
of low melt polymer. Id. Rather, Appellants contend:
Id.
... all reference to low melt within Pithouse is with regard to
the conductive fibers for the conductive means 11 and not the
recoverable fibers. Thus, it stands to reason that one skilled in
art, upon viewing and understanding the full teaching of
Pithouse, would be taught to insert heat-recoverable yam and
not a low melt polymeric yam, as claimed be [sic, by]
appellants.
Appellants' argument is not supported by adequate factual evidence.
At column 2, 11. 49---65, Pithouse teaches:
Where a weave is used, we prefer that fibres in one direction
provide the conductive material and fibres in the other direction
are recoverable. In particular, we prefer that substantially all of
the fibres in one direction are conductive, and substantially all
of the fibres in the other direction are recoverable .... These
comments relate primarily to weaves having warp and weft
perpendicular ....
Thus, Pithouse does not limit the recoverable fibers to the weft or
laid-in stitch, but permits the recoverable fiber to be present in the sleeve as
either a warp or weft stitch. Consequently, because a weave has warp and
weft fibers, when the recoverable fiber is warp, the conductive fiber would
be weft. Accordingly, even were there a preference for recoverable fibers
being in the weft stitch, Pithouse has broader disclosure in which the
5
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
recoverable fiber can be warp and the conductive fiber can be the weft laid-
in stitch.
Appellants refer to a specific example of a knitted heat recoverable
inserted yam as weft. Reply Br. 4. This preferred example does not negate
the broader disclosure in Pithouse at column 2, lines 49---65, in which the
recoverable fiber could be either weft or warp, and correspondingly, the
conductive fiber in weft or warp.
Low melt yarn
Appellants contend that Pithouse does not describe a laid-in yam that
is a polymeric yam of a low melt polymer. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants
contend that "all reference to low melt within Pithouse is with regard to the
conductive fibers for the conductive means 11." Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' argument is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Beginning at column 5, Pithouse teaches that the conductive fibers
comprise a means at their end for electrically terminating the conductive
fibers. Pithouse, col. 5, 11. 56-61; col. 6, 11. 4--8. Pithouse describes utilizing
sealing material for this purpose. Id., col. 6, 11. 37--41. Thus, it is true that
Pithouse describes the low melt polymer as a conductive means situated at
the end of the conductive yam fiber as argued by Appellants. However, this
is not the only disclosure in Pithouse of where a low melt fiber can be
located. Pithouse further teaches:
Suitable sealing materials include solder (by which we mean
any metal or alloy of suitably low melting point, such as 80°-
2500 C., for example a eutectic mixture), conductive sealants
for example mastics, or conductive adhesives for example heat-
6
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
activatable adhesives .... The solder or adhesive may be
incorporated into the fabric for example by weaving or knitting
fibres of solder or adhesive ... The solder or adhesive may
penetrate the interstices of the fabric after installation .. , The
sealing material is preferably heat-activatable by softening or
melting so that its contact with the fabric increases as the fabric
recovers.
Id.) coL 6) L 46 to coL 7) L 4.
Thus, while Appellants may be correct that Pithouse teaches a means
at the end of the sleeve comprising a low melt adhesive polymer, Pithouse
also has broader explicit disclosure that the fiber, itself, can be made of the
low melt adhesive or that the adhesive can penetrate the fiber. We have not
been directed to any language in the claim or the Specification which would
exclude the claimed "polymeric yam of a low melt polymer" from reading
on both these alternatives. Thus, while Appellants argue that the "means"
for terminating the conductive fibers cannot be equated with a low melt yam
(Reply Br. 2), there is explicit disclosure in Pithouse where the yam, itself, is
made of low melt adhesive, satisfying the limitation of "said laid-in yam is a
polymeric yam of a low melt polymer."
Dampening, non-abrasive
Appellants contend that Pithouse does not describe "dampening, non-
abrasive inner surface including laid-in polymeric yam of a low melt
polymer." Reply Br. 2. However, when the polymeric yam is laid-in weft,
it would be on the inside of the tube. Appellants have not identified a
factual error in the Examiner's finding that Pithouse describes the sleeve as
insulating which would inherently be non-abrasive. Final Rej. 3.
7
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
Conductive sealing material
Appellants contend that the sealing material in the conductive fiber
contains metal, such as silver, and thus would not be low melt polymer.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appellants' argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
As the Examiner succinctly stated: "The addition of metal additive does not
tum a polymer fiber into a metal fiber, it only provides a polymer fiber with
metallic additives." Answer 7. Appellants did not provide sufficient
evidence that the addition of the metal would alter the low melt properties of
the yam.
Claim 6
Independent claim 6 has the same limitations as in claim 1, but further
recites "at least some of said polymeric laid-in yam being bonded to said
elongate member." The Examiner found that Pithouse teaches:
The article comprises a sealing material of adhesive,
sealant (Claim 10), or solder fibers (Claim 13), which are
knitted, woven, or braided with the fiber of the fabric, and
either spread uniformly across the surface or at localized points
(col. 6, line: 35 - col. 7, line: 45). This is considered the
equivalent of bonding at least some of said laid-in yam to said
elongate member.
Final Rej. 3.
The Examiner also found that "the sealing material (solder or
adhesive) is used to provide a joint between the fabric and another article
(C7, L25-30)." Answer 7.
The disclosure in Pithouse referenced by the Examiner is a discussion
of the means for terminating the textile sleeve at a housing for the cable.
8
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
Pithouse, col. 5, 11. 56-57; col. 6, 11. 37--44. Fig. 3 of Pithouse, discussed at
column 10, lines 36-53, shows an example in which the adhesive layer at the
end of the conductive fiber contacts a housing 8. The housing is an elongate
member, meeting the claimed requirement of "polymeric laid-in yam being
bonded to said elongate member," where the adhesive corresponds to the
polymeric laid-in yam and the housing 8 is the elongate member.
Appellants contend that "it is the conductive screen material 11 that is
bonded to the conductive layer 9 of the housing 8, and not the heat-
recoverable material." Reply Br. 3. Appellants do not appear to dispute that
the screen material is bonded to an elongate member, i.e., housing 8. Rather,
their argument appears to be the same one already addressed: i.e., the
conductive fiber, which contains the low-melt adhesive polymer and which
forms the conductive screen around the conductor 6 of Fig. 3, is not laid-in
yam as required by the claim, but instead the "heat-recoverable material,"
which lacks the low-melt polymer, is the laid-in yam. We have already
identified broad disclosure in Pithouse which does not restrict the conductive
fiber from being in the warp or weft stitch. Appellants' argument fails to
take into account this broader disclosure.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 6 as
obvious in view of Pithouse. Claims 2--4 and 7 were not argued separately
and fall with claims 1 and 6. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
9
Appeal2015-000185
Application 13/314,289
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10