Ex Parte Cates et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2012

11389941 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

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.
11/389,941 03/27/2006 Elizabeth Cates 5941 2906
25280 7590 09/24/2012
Legal Department (M-495)
P.O. Box 1926
Spartanburg, SC 29304
EXAMINER
PATEL, VINOD D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2012 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 ELIZABETH CATES and ALFRED R. DEANGELIS
____________________

Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Elizabeth Cates et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 15-19, 21-23 and
26, which are all the claims remaining of record, claims 3, 7, 12-14, 20, 24
and 25 having been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to electric heating elements,
particularly those used for heatable garments such as gloves. Spec., para.
[0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An electric heating element comprising:
a conductive fabric having a first and second
side comprising conductive fibers or yarns and
having a surface resistivity of between 0.1 and 100
ohms, wherein the conductive fabric is selected
from the group consisting of woven, knit, or
nonwoven;
a continuous or discontinuous patterned
conductive layer on at least the first or second side
of the conductive fabric, wherein the patterned
conductive layer comprises a layer selected from
the group consisting of a patterned conductive
paste, an additional conductive fabric cut or
formed into a pattern, an embroidery layer
comprising conductive yarns, and a plated
patterned metallic layer, wherein the patterned
conductive layer is electrically connected to the
conductive fabric, wherein the patterned
conductive layer covers only a portion of the
conductive fabric forming patterned conductive
areas and unpatterned areas, and wherein the
Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941

3
patterned conductive areas have a higher
conductivity than the unpatterned areas; and,
at least 2 conductive buses on the
conductive fabric, wherein the patterned
conductive layer is disposed on the conductive
fabric between the buses, wherein the conductive
buses are in electrical contact with the conductive
fabric,
wherein the buses have a higher electrical
conductivity than the conductive fabric and the
patterned conductive layer, and wherein the
electric heating element has regions of differing
resistivity between the buses.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Niibe
Child
Gurevich
Kleshchik
Rutherford
DeAngelis
US 4,149,066
US 6,001,749
US 6,057,530
US 6,649,886 B1
US 6,667,100 B2
US 7,151,062 B2
Apr. 10, 1979
Dec. 14, 1999
May 2, 2000
Nov. 18, 2003
Dec. 23, 2003
Dec. 19, 2006
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and DeAngelis.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Niibe.
Claims 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Rutherford.
Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941

4
ISSUE
Would the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child, as
proposed by the Examiner, have resulted in a patterned conductive layer on
at least one side of a conductive fabric?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 based on
Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gurevich discloses an
electric heating element comprising a conductive fabric 11, a patterned
conductive layer 21 on at least one side of the conductive fabric 11, and the
other limitations of claim 1 except for (i) the conductive fabric having a
surface resistivity of between 0.1 and 100 ohms, (ii) the patterned
conductive layer covering only a portion of the conductive fabric, and (iii)
the patterned conductive areas having a higher conductivity than the
unpatterned areas. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also finds that Kleshchik
discloses missing limitation (i) and Child discloses missing limitations (ii)
and (iii). Ans. 5. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Gurevich with the
missing limitations as taught by Kleshchik and Child “to generate and
maintain required temperature in a certain local zone” of Gurevich. Ans. 6.
Gurevich discloses a fabric heating element that is made of
electrically conductive carbon carrying fabric impregnated with a soft filling
material. Gurevich, col. 3, ll. 63-65. As shown in Figure 1, the fabric
heating element can be manufactured by advancing a carbon carrying fabric
basis 11 through a solution of soft filling material 21 in an impregnation
basin 31. Gurevich, col. 4, ll. 36-40. The soft filling material 21 acts as a
Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941

5
stabilizer and can also augment the electro-conductive characteristics of the
fabric 11. Gurevich, col. 4, ll. 55-58.
Appellants argue that Gurevich fails to disclose the soft filling
material being applied to the fabric in a patterned manner. App. Br. 6. We
agree with Appellants. The soft filling material 21 of Gurevich impregnates
the carbon carrying fabric 11 and as such is not applied as a layer on the
fabric 11 in either a patterned or unpatterned manner. Therefore, the soft
filling material does not comprise a layer on at least one of the first or
second sides of the conductive fabric, as required by claim 1. Kleshchik and
Child do not overcome this deficiency of Gurevich.
We also note that Gurevich teaches that one objective of the fabric
heating element is to radiate uniform heat over the entire heating surface and
thereby prevent over-heated spots. Gurevich, col. 3, ll. 7-9. The Examiner
has failed to explain why, in light of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been moved to modify Gurevich’s fabric heating element
to provide areas having a higher conductivity than other areas, which would
result in uneven heating.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1—and of claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 depending
therefrom—under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich,
Kleshchik and Child.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 over
the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child and further in view of
Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941

6
one of DeAngelis, Niibe or Rutherford.1 All of these claims depend directly
or indirectly from independent claim 1. The Examiner’s rejections of claims
2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 are based on the same erroneous finding
made in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of Gurevich,
Kleshchik and Child discussed supra. As such, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and
Child and further in view of one of DeAngelis, Niibe or Rutherford.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child does not include a
patterned conductive layer on at least one side of a conductive fabric.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich,
Kleshchik and Child is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and
DeAngelis is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Niibe is reversed.

1 We note that claims 2, 11, 15, 17-19 and 21 are also rejected over the
combination of just Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child.
Appeal 2010-008758
Application 11/389,941

7
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and
Rutherford is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh