Ex parte Colvin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2000

09149254 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TERRY J. COLVIN
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 4, all of the claims in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to the combination
with a personal shower enclosure of a flexible shower curtain
slidably secured along a curtain support rod, with first and
second side edges of the shower curtain each containing at
least one
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
2
horizontally disposed hook and pile fabric strip, and at least
one vertically oriented hook and pile fabric strip angularly
disposed relative to the horizontally disposed hook and pile
fabric strip and secured to enclosure walls inwardly of the
plane of the curtain support rod, whereby the shower curtain
may be turned inwardly for adjustable and temporary
securement. A further understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which
appears in the APPENDIX to the brief (Paper No. 9).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied
the documents listed below:
Stemke et al. 3,365,684 Jan. 23,
1968
(Stemke)
Phinn, Jr. 5,228,149 Jul. 20,
1993
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Phinn, Jr. in view of Stemke.
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have1
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
(continued...)
3
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and
response to the argument presented by appellant appears in the
answer (Paper No. 10), while the complete statement of
appellant’s argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 9).

Appellant has not indicated that the claims do not
stand or fall together, as per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Thus, we
select claim 1 for review, infra, and the remaining claims
shall stand or fall therewith.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issue raised in
this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and selected claim 1, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and 1
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
(...continued)1
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 1, inter alia, requires at least one
“horizontally disposed hook and pile fabric strip” and at
least one “vertically oriented hook and pile fabric strip”
angularly disposed relative to the horizontally disposed hook
and pile fabric strip to effect adjustable and temporary
securement of a shower curtain to the walls of a personal
shower enclosure.
We share appellant’s point of view (brief, page 2)
that a “strip,” as claimed, and as described in the
specification and shown in the drawing, would be understood by
one having ordinary skill in the art to denote a long narrow
piece of material.
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
5
It follows that claim 1, therefore, requires long
narrow pieces of hook and pile fabric material (strips), at
least one “vertically oriented” and at least one “horizontally
disposed,” with the vertically oriented strip angularly
disposed relative to the horizontally disposed strip, i.e.,
the length of one strip extends vertically (vertically
oriented) and the length of another strip extends horizontally
(horizontally disposed).
Appellant does not dispute the examiner’s
combination of the Phinn, Jr. and Stemke references, but
argues (brief, pages 4 and 5), in effect, that unlike the
arrangement of angularly oriented strips in the present
invention that provide bi-directional adjustment, conventional
linearly aligned strips fasten by overlapping in a single
direction.
Our review of the Phinn, Jr. document reveals to us
that it specifically addresses curtain and wall mounted hook
and loop pads 30 and 36 (Figs. 1 and 3) or their equivalent
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
6
(column 2, lines 18 and 19), and recognizes that hook and loop
strips and pads are known (column 1, lines 57 and 58).
However, nowhere within the overall teaching of Phinn, Jr. do
we perceive other than a teaching or suggestion for a linear
arrangement of pads or strips for overlapping thereof in a
single direction. The patent to Stemke does not overcome this
deficiency. Since the evidence of obviousness proffered by
the examiner fails to include a teaching or suggestion of a
length of one hook and pile fabric strip extending vertically
(vertically oriented) and the length of another hook and pile
strip extending horizontally (horizontally disposed), the
rejection of appellant’s claims must be reversed.
In summary, this panel of the board has not
sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
7
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC:psb
Appeal No. 2000-1445
Application No. 09/149,254
8
WILLIAM B. NOLL
402 ANEMONE STREET
PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL 32413
APPEAL NO. 2000-1445 - JUDGE
COHEN
APPLICATION NO. 09/149,254
APJ COHEN
APJ McQUADE
APJ NASE
DECISION: REVERSED
Prepared By:
DRAFT TYPED: 27 Apr 01
FINAL TYPED: