Ex Parte Bonime et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201814289263 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/289,263 05/28/2014 BartBonime 25315 7590 08/23/2018 LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC 701 FIFTH A VENUE SUITE4800 SEATTLE, WA 98104 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. PATA-1-2010 7348 EXAMINER HALL, FORREST G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BART BONIME and SARAH DA VISON 1 Appeal2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22, 24--28, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appeal Brief indicates that Patagonia, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to dropseat waders and a suspension system therefore. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A wearable garment, comprising: a trouser comprising; first dropseat-fastener coupled to the trouser at a first location, wherein the first location is on a surface of a posterior portion of the trouser that is configured to be disposed approximately at a small of the wearer's back; and a guide disposed superior to the first dropseat-fastener, at least a portion of a loop being formed by the guide such that the loop is disposed on the surface of the posterior portion of the trouser completely below a top edge of the trouser and completely above the first drops eat-fastener; and a suspension system comprising: a posterior strap comprising a first strap end and a second strap end; a second dropseat-fastener coupled to the first strap end, wherein the loop is configured and arranged to receive at least a portion of the posterior strap between at least a portion of the guide and the surface of the posterior portion of the trouser when the second dropseat-fastener is detachably coupled to the first drop seat-fastener; a right shoulder strap comprising a third strap end coupled to a right anterior portion of the trouser and a fourth strap end coupled to the second strap end; and a left shoulder strap comprising a fifth strap end coupled to a left anterior portion of the trouser and a sixth strap end coupled to the second strap end, such that the right shoulder strap and left shoulder strap are configured to engage the wearer's shoulders to support the trousers. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal 2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Clark Hoagland Putnam Lucier Foster Lepage us 1,077,671 us 2,979,153 us 4,888,830 us 5,172,429 US 6,772,440 B 1 US 7,770,235 B2 REJECTIONS Nov. 4, 1913 Apr. 11, 1961 Dec. 26, 1989 Dec. 22, 1992 Aug. 10, 2004 Aug. 10, 2010 (I) Claims 1-9, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clarke and Hoagland. (II) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clarke, Hoagland, and Lucier. (III) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clarke, Hoagland, and Putnam. (IV) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clarke, Hoagland, Putnam, and Lucier. (V) Claims 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clarke, Hoagland, and Lepage. (VI) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clarke, Hoagland, and Foster. (VII) Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Putnam, Clarke, Foster, and Hoagland. (VIII) Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Putnam, Hoagland, and Foster. 3 Appeal 2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 OPINION Rejection (I); Clarke and Hoagland The Examiner finds that Clarke discloses most of the features recited in claim 1, but does not disclose a guide disposed superior to the first drop seat-fastener. Final Act. 5---6. To address this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Hoagland discloses guides (28, 31, and 34) that form loops that can be disposed in different positions on interior surfaces of a garment completely below top edges of the garment in order to guide straps as needed. Id. at 6 ( citing Hoagland, 3: 7 5--4: 11). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious "to add guides forming loops on interior surfaces completely below top edges of the garment as taught by Hoagland because Hoagland teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for guiding straps into desired positions." Id. Appellants contend that only a "tiny area" in the trousers of Clarke is available for placement of a guide as taught by Hoagland, and, if a guide is added to this location as proposed by the Examiner, no benefit would result. See Appeal Br. 10-14. Specifically, Appellants contend that, as the connection between fasteners (button 13 and circular portion 7) in Clarke is positioned at the top of Clarke's trousers, the location of the added guide would be immediately adjacent this connection. Appeal Br. 14. Therefore, according to Appellants, finding and using the added guide would be no easier than merely connecting the fasteners without use of the guide. Id. In response, the Examiner states, "[ a ]lthough there is limited distance between fastener (13) and the top edge of the pants, it may still be difficult to locate for a wearer fiddling behind their back." Ans. 2. Further, the Examiner finds that, "in a situation where the waist of the garment is loose around the wearer ( as is often the motivation for donning suspenders) the 4 Appeal 2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 guide could be useful for preventing the pants from falling down while fastener (6) is manipulated onto fastener (13)." Id. In reply, Appellants pose the inquiry, "if a fastener is difficult to locate behind a wearer's back, how would an additional guide immediately adjacent to it not also be just as difficult to locate?" Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner's finding that the addition of a guide would provide a benefit during donning of the trousers in Clarke is not based upon evidence, and is, instead, merely speculation. Id. Appellants have the better position because a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's motivation for modifying Clarke. We agree with Appellants that, in the arrangement of the trousers and connections disclosed by Clarke, the addition of a guide as proposed by the Examiner would result in the guide and the connection point being immediately adjacent one another. It appears that in such a configuration, the use of the guide would be superfluous to the use of the connection itself, and the Examiner directs our attention to no evidence supporting a finding to the contrary. Indeed, the purpose of the guides in Hoagland is to maintain the straps (nooses) in their proper position during tightening of the garment in Hoagland upon the user's body, not to assist in connecting fasteners. Hoagland, 2:32-51. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 12, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Clarke and Hoagland. Rejections (11)-(VI); Lucier, Putnam, Lepage, and Foster Claims 7, 10, 11, 13-17, and 19 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 19- 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner's use of Lucier, Putnam, Lepage, and Foster does not remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding Rejection (I). See Final Act. 12-14. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we do not sustain Rejections (II}-(VI). 5 Appeal 2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 Rejection (VII); Putnam, Clarke, Foster, and Hoagland Independent claim 22 recites "a trouser ... [ comprising] a guide coupled to the surface of the posterior region of the trouser at a second location, wherein the second location is above the first location and completely below the upper edge of the trouser." Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Putnam to teach a garment covering a wearer's hip region and a portion of the wearer's legs and again relies on Hoagland to teach a guide. See Final Act. 14--16. The Examiner's reason for making the proposed modification based on Hoagland is the same as the one articulated for Rejection (I), namely, "because Hoagland teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for guiding straps into desired positions." Final Act. 16. Appellants contend "Putnam shows fasteners at the top of the trousers (see Figs. 2 and 4) similarly to Clarke and therefore does not provide space or any rational basis for adding a guide between the fasteners and the top of the trousers as taught by Hoagland." Appeal Br. 15. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's reason for modifying the garment of Putnam as proposed is not supported by rational underpinning. As asserted by Appellants, Putnam's garment makes a connection in a location immediately adjacent to where the Examiner proposes to add a guide. See Putnam Figs. 2, 4. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (I) and Clarke, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22-27 as unpatentable over Putnam, Clarke, Foster, and Hoagland. Rejection (VIII); Putnam, Hoagland, and Foster The rejection of independent claim 28 and claim 30 depending therefrom again relies on a modification of a garment taught by Putnam to include a guide as taught by Hoagland. See Final Act. 17-18. For the same 6 Appeal 2017-010011 Application 14/289,263 reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (VI), we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 28 and 30 as unpatentable over Putnam, Hoagland, and Foster. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22, 24--28, and 30 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation