Ex Parte Bancroft

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2017

13679973 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)

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.
13/679,973 11/16/2012 Allen John BANCROFT BANCROFT 1 3377
99344 7590 10/16/2017
Patent T aw of Virginia PT T .P
EXAMINER
PO Box 9319
Richmond, VA 23227
HOEY, ALISSA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2017 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):
brian @patentlawva.com
brianjteague@gmail.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLEN JOHN BANCROFT
Appeal 2015-0071851
Application 13/679,9732
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claim 3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Mar. 9, 2015), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 21, 2015), and the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Oct. 14, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Allen John Bancroft.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007185
Application 13/679,973
BACKGROUND
According to the Specification, “[t]he present invention relates to
helmets and systems for fastening helmets.” Spec. 12.
CLAIMS
Claim 3 is the only claim on appeal. It recites:
3. A helmet fastening system comprising:
a stud adapted to be affixed to an outer shell of a helmet,
the stud comprising an enlarged head;
a chinstrap; and
a connector affixed to the chinstrap configured to
releasably attach to the stud to retain the chinstrap to the helmet,
the connector comprising:
a housing comprising a recess and an underside with an
opening into the recess;
an actuator movable within the recess and along a
longitudinal axis of the housing between a first position in which
the actuator engages the stud to retain the connector to the helmet
and a second position in which the actuator disengages the stud
to release the connector from the helmet; and
a spring to bias the actuator toward the first position;
wherein the actuator comprises (i) an upper grasping
portion extending outside of the housing and adapted to enable a
user to move the actuator from the first to the second position,
(ii) a resilient, radially-expanding enlarged lower portion, and
(iii) a middle portion connecting the lower portion to the upper
portion,
wherein the recess has an upper portion sized to receive at
least a top portion of the enlarged head and a lower portion
comprising an inverse frusto-conical shape that is wider at a top
end and narrower at a bottom end;
wherein the enlarged lower portion of the actuator extends
at least partly under the enlarged head of the stud when the
actuator is in the first position, with the narrower end of the lower
2
Appeal 2015-007185
Application 13/679,973
portion of the recess restricting outward movement of the
enlarged lower portion of the actuator, thereby trapping the
enlarged head within the recess and restricting separation of the
connector and the stud;
wherein, when the actuator is in the second position, the
wider end of the lower portion of the recess allows outward
movement of the enlarged lower portion of the actuator, thereby
allowing the enlarged head to exit the recess and allowing
separation of the connector and the stud.
Br. 31.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Baader.3
2. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Alexander4 in view of Baader.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Alexander in view of Appellant’s Specification paragraph 40.
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
With respect to the anticipation rejection, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that Baader does not disclose a chinstrap as required
by claim 3. See Br. 7. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that Baader
discloses a chinstrap because “[t]he chinstrap as recited in claim 3, does not
require any specific chinstrap structure,” and thus, any fabric that “can be
placed around a chin” may be considered a chinstrap including “the
3 Baader, 5,722,130, iss. Mar. 3, 1998.
4 Alexander, US 6,324,701 Bl, iss. Dec. 4, 2001.
3
Appeal 2015-007185
Application 13/679,973
tarpaulins, tops and other covers of Baader.” Ans. 3. However, we find that
the Examiner is applying an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim.
We find that the claim language and the Specification require an
interpretation of the term “chinstrip” according to its plain and ordinary
meaning, which is a strap of material connected to headgear and placed
under the chin such that it is designed to hold the headgear in place on a
user’s head. In particular, we note that each and every embodiment
described in the Specification refers to the use of a chinstrap to hold a
helmet in place. See e.g., Spec. 6, 7, 36, 37.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner’s interpretation of
the term “chinstrap” to include any piece of fabric that can be placed around
the chin is in error, and we conclude that Baader does not disclose a
chinstrap as claimed because Baader discloses only that element 19 is
“fabric” that “is understood in the widest sense and includes convertible tops
and tarpaulins as well as body sheets for vehicles, for example.” Baader
col. 3,11.40-45. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim as
anticipated by Baader.
Obviousness
As an initial matter, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
undisputed findings regarding the art of record with respect to the
obviousness rejections of claim 3. See Final Act. 6—10; see also Br. 9.
Thus, we need only address here, Appellant’s argument that that “[sjtrong
and persuasive objective evidence exists that the suggested modification [of
Alexander] would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Br. 9. In support of this argument, Appellant asserts that the claimed
invention solves a long-felt need related to a persistent problem recognized
4
Appeal 2015-007185
Application 13/679,973
in the art, not satisfied by another, and which is satisfied by Appellant’s
invention. Br. 11—26. As discussed below, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument and the accompanying evidence because we find that
Hampton5 already provided a solution to the same problem addressed by
Appellant before the filing date of the present claims.
Under Graham et al., v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17—18 (1966),
objective evidence of non-obvious may include evidence related to
commercial success, long felt and unresolved need, and the failure of others.
In particular, where the evidence relied upon is intended to show long-felt
need, the problem addressed must be one that has not been solved by others.
See, e.g. Monarch Knitting Machinery Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139
F.3d 877, 884 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The relevant secondary consideration is
Tong-felt but unsolved need,’ not long-felt need in isolation. The question,
then, is whether [the] evidence of contemporaneous development solved the
need.”)
Here, Appellant presents evidence that the claimed device satisfies a
long-felt need related to a persistent and pervasive problem that has not been
solved by others prior to the claimed invention. Br. 11—26. In support,
Appellant addresses, inter alia, whether certain art previously cited by the
Examiner solves the problem addressed by the claims here. More
specifically, Appellant provides evidence in the form of a declaration by the
inventor that allegedly shows that Hampton does not solve the problem
addressed by the claims. Id. at 18—19; see also Suppl. Decl. of Allen John
Bancroft, dated June 16, 2014. Appellant asserts that Hampton’s device
5 Hampton, II, US 8,453,269 B2, iss. June 4, 2013.
5
Appeal 2015-007185
Application 13/679,973
does not provide a solution to the problem because the modification required
to a helmet to implement Hampton’s solution would “not be certified by any
of the helmet manufacturers.” Suppl. Decl. at | 5. Appellant also asserts
that because Hampton requires a plurality of holes along the length of the
chin strap, “these holes in the chin strap significantly weaken the chin strap
and could potentially result in breakage of the chin strap, thereby allowing
the helmet to unintentionally come off.” Id.
We find that the speculative statements of Appellant do not
adequately support the conclusion that Hampton does not solve the problem
addressed by the claims. By Appellant’s own admission, the long felt need
addressed by the claims relates to the problem of chinstraps coming
unfastened inadvertently. Br. 11. Hampton acknowledges the same
problem. See Hampton col. 1,11. 34-40, 51—53. Specifically, Hampton
discloses that contact during a tackle may cause the male and female snap
portions of a traditional chinstrap/helmet combination to disengage “causing
the helmet to fly off of the user’s head,” and Hampton discloses that “[t]he
primary objective of the invention is to provide a strap attachment for a
sports helmet that prevents the strap from disengaging during sports play.”
Id. To that end, Hampton discloses the use of a male quarter turn member
and a female quarter turn fastening member that together lock the strap in
place onto the helmet so that the helmet cannot accidentally come loose
during play. Id. at col. 2,1. 67—col. 3,1. 16.
Appellant’s evidence does not address whether Hampton’s device
solves the problem of inadvertent unfastening of chinstrap fasteners, i.e.,
Appellant does not argue that Hampton’s device would not prevent
inadvertent unfastening, and we see no indication on the record before us
6
Appeal 2015-007185
Application 13/679,973
that Hampton would not actually prevent inadvertent unfastening. Rather,
Appellant’s evidence provides only speculation that Hampton’s solution to
the problem would not be practical, either because the modifications
required by Hampton would “not be certified by any of the helmet
manufacturers” or that the holes in Hampton’s chin strap would
“significantly weaken” it such that breakage of the chin strap may occur.
See Br. 18; Supplemental declaration f 5. However, without further
support, we are not persuaded that these speculative statements show that
Hampton’s device does not provide a solution to the problem that Hampton
and Appellant seek to address.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the obviousness rejections of claim 3. Accordingly, we affirm
those rejections.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the obviousness rejections of claim 3 for the reasons
discussed herein. We REVERSE the anticipation rejection of claim 3.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7