Ex Parte Eagles

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2014

12613223 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANA EAGLES
____________

Appeal 2013-005793
Application 12/613,223
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-005793
Application 12/613,223

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision1 finally rejecting claims 1-12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 26-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Davenport (US 2002/0139503 A1, published Oct. 3,
2002).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).3
We REVERSE.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for forming a textile structure comprising the
steps of:
spiral winding machine direction (MD) yams to form a system having
a defined width;
depositing a pattern of cross machine direction (CD) elements onto
said system of MD yarns,
wherein said CD elements do not encapsulate the MD yarns along the
entire length thereof; and
curing said CD elements to obtain a solid system of CD elements.
Appellant raises the following issue for our consideration: did the
Examiner reversibly err in finding Davenport discloses a method of forming
a textile structure which includes a step of “depositing a pattern of cross
machine direction (CD) elements onto [a] system of MD yarns, wherein said
CD elements do not encapsulate the MD yarns along the entire length
thereof” (claim 1)? (App. Br. 9.)

1 Final Office Action mailed Apr. 13, 2012.
2 Appeal Brief filed Nov. 13, 2012 (“App. Br.”).
3 Appellant identifies the present appeal as related to the appeal in SN
10/717,859, a division of the present application (Appeal 2013-005567).
Reply Brief filed Mar. 11, 2013 (“Reply Br.”), 2. The Examiner’s decision
to reject the claims which were the subject of a prior appeal in SN
10/717,859 (Appeal 2009-000296) was affirmed in a Board Decision mailed
Oct. 8, 2009. (Reply Br. 2.)
Appeal 2013-005793
Application 12/613,223

3
Davenport describes a method of forming a fabric from
multicomponent yarns 16 comprising a plurality of individual yarn strands
and at least one thermofusible strand of a thermoplastic material (or a
coating of the material). (Davenport [0038].) Davenport states that “upon
application of a heat treatment to any given length” of the yarn, the material
melts and flows into the spaces between the individual yarn strands and
adjacent lengths of the multicomponent yarns 16. (Id. (emphasis
added).) “At the conclusion of the heat treatment, the thermoplastic material
resolidifies and joins adjacent lengths of multicomponent yarns 16 to one
another in a side-by-side configuration.” (Id.) “There are no cross-machine-
direction (CD) yarns to unravel to form the loops required for seaming, yet
the base structure has CD stability because the machine-direction (MD)
yarns are bonded side-by-side to one another.” (Id. at [0062].)
“It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill is well
apprised from the teaching of Davenport that the CD elements do not
encapsulate the MD yarns along the entire length when heat treatment is not
applied to the entire length.” (Ans.4 8.) We agree with Appellant (see App.
Br. 9) that, when considering Davenport in its entirety, the only final
structure contemplated by Davenport is one in which the MD yarns are
encapsulated along the entire length thereof. (See Davenport [0062] supra.)
While Davenport indicates the heat treatment step need not occur
simultaneously across the entirety of the thermofusible material in forming
the fabric (see id. at [0038] supra), the Examiner has not identified evidence
to support a finding that Davenport expressly or inherently teaches or

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 11, 2013.
Appeal 2013-005793
Application 12/613,223

4
suggests limiting the step of heat treating the thermoplastic material to only
a portion of the yarn.
Because the Examiner has not met the burden to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1-12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 26-34 is:

REVERSED

cdc