11326359 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

Ex Parte Bridges

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2013

11326359 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

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. 11/326,359 01/05/2006 Cliff Bridges 05-444 1470 62753 7590 07/29/2013 VALERIE CALLOWAY CHIEF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL POLYMER GROUP, INC. 9335 HARRIS CORNERS PARKWAY SUITE 300 CHARLOTTE, NC 28269 EXAMINER PATEL, VINOD D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2013 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 CLIFF BRIDGES ____________________ Appeal 2011-007304 Application 11/326,359 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007304 Application 11/326,359 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4, 9-14, and 23-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Appellant’s claimed invention is “generally related to a layered nonwoven fabric construct, and more specifically related to a layered nonwoven blanket incorporating one or more heating elements.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claims 1 and 24 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A limited use disposable, recreational blanket, the blanket comprising: a spunlace layer having an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein said spunlace layer comprises a hydroentangled, carded fibrous matrix of staple fiber; a nonwoven continuous filament layer having an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the inner surface of the continuous filament layer is positioned face-to-face with the inner surface of the spunlace layer and the outer surface of the continuous filament layer is metallized wherein the metallized outer surface comprises a metal coating deposited on said outer surface of the continuous filament layer; and at least one disposable heat pack proximate the metallized outer surface of the continuous filament layer, wherein the at least one heat pack is activatable by breaking up and combining chemistries contained within the at least one pack. Appeal 2011-007304 Application 11/326,359 3 Evidence Relied Upon Lawson Kochman US 5,925,275 US 6,403,935 B2 Jul. 20, 1999 Jun. 11, 2002 Nilforushan US 2005/0211192 A1 Sep. 29, 2005 The Rejections The following rejections are before us on appeal: I. Claims 1, 11, 13, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lawson, Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), and Nilforushan. II. Claims 4, 9-14, and 23-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lawson, Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Nilforushan, and Kochman. ISSUE Independent claim 1 is directed to a limited use disposable, recreational blanket, and claim 24 is directed to a limited use blanket. The blanket of each claim includes a nonwoven continuous filament layer. Each of the rejections before us on review relies in part on a finding that Lawson’s resistive heater element 22, a commercially available non- woven fabric consisting of chopped nickel-coated carbon fibers, corresponds to a nonwoven continuous filament layer as claimed. Ans. 4 (Rejection I), 6 (Rejection II). Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that chopped nickel-coated carbon fibers, as disclosed by Lawson, are not continuous filaments, and cannot form a continuous filament layer as claimed. Reply Br. 6-7; see also App. Br. 21. Appeal 2011-007304 Application 11/326,359 4 The issue before us is whether Lawson discloses a nonwoven continuous filament layer as claimed. OPINION A continuous filament is formed into an article of a running or extremely long length, while a staple is a continuous filament that has been cut or chopped into shorter lengths. Spec. 6, para. [0027], incorporating by reference US 5,322,736, iss. June 21, 1994, to Boyle at col. 2, ll. 9-16 (referring to polymer or copolymer filaments which have been so formed); see also Spec. 6, para. [0027], incorporating by reference US 5,834,119, iss. Nov. 10, 1998, to Roop (“Roop”) at col. 1, ll. 16-20. Similarly, yarns of synthetic fibers can be classified into two groups: (1) continuous filament yarns, or (2) spun yarns, meaning yarns of discontinuous fibers often referred to as staples or cut fibers. Spec. 6, para. [0027], Roop at col. 1, ll. 12-16. A continuous filament layer, also known as a spunbond fabric, is a layer formed from continuous filaments. Spec. 3, para. [0011], citing US 3,338,992, iss. Aug. 29, 1967, to Kinney at col. 1, ll. 22-26 (referring to a structure formed from continuous filaments as a nonwoven filamentary structure (layer)). Therefore, the continuous filament layer of claims 1 and 24 is a layer comprised of continuous filaments rather than staples. Lawson’s resistive heater element 22 may be in the form of a non- woven fabric consisting of chopped nickel-coated carbon fibers ranging in length from ¼ inch to one inch. Lawson, col. 5, ll. 39-45, 47-48. Because Lawson’s resistive heater element 22 is formed from fibers that are Appeal 2011-007304 Application 11/326,359 5 “chopped” and of ¼ inch to one inch in length, a preponderance of the evidence suggests these fibers are not continuous filaments.1 Contra Ans. 4, 13. Consequently, Lawson does not disclose a nonwoven continuous filament layer as claimed, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 and their respective dependent claims 4, 9-14, 23, and 25- 31. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 9-14, and 23-31. REVERSED mls 1 Because a continuous filament layer as claimed is a layer comprised of continuous filaments, not a layer that is continuous, the Examiner’s emphasis that Lawson’s resistive heater element 22 is “one continuous sheet” does not provide support for the Examiner’s finding that resistive heater element 22 is a continuous filament layer. See Ans. 13.