12146940 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

Ex Parte Faulconer

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2014

12146940 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

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. 12/146,940 06/26/2008 Mark Faulconer A-75231 6058 40461 7590 09/25/2014 EDWARD S. WRIGHT 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 207 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 EXAMINER HADEN, SALLY CLINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2014 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 MARK FAULCONER ____________________ Appeal 2012-007135 Application 12/146,940 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–25. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a weightlifting glove with integrated hand and wrist support. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 A weightlifting glove comprising a body having a front piece that overlies and is substantially coextensive with the palm of a wearer's hand and a back that overlies the back of the hand, finger sleeves extending from the upper portion of the body, a thumb sleeve extending from the front piece, and a supporting Appeal 2012-007135 Application 12/146,940 2 wrap having a palm section that is substantially coextensive with the front piece, encircles the thumb sleeve, and is affixed to the front piece and the thumb sleeve, and a free portion that extends laterally from the palm section and wraps about the wrist and a portion of the palm section to provide integrated support for the palm and thumb portions of the hand as well as the wrist. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wiggins Caswell US 5,033,119 US 5,557,806 July 23, 1991 Sept. 24, 1996 REJECTIONS1 Claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wiggins. Ans. 4. Claims 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiggins. Ans. 6. Claims 5, 7–11, 17–20, and 22–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiggins in view of Caswell. Ans. 7. 1 The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not repeated in the Answer and is therefore deemed withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd. App. 1957); Reply Br. 2. The revision to 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1) indicating that “[a]n examiner’s answer is deemed to incorporate all of the grounds of rejection set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken . . . unless the examiners answer expressly indicates that a ground of rejection has been withdraw,” did not take effect until January 23, 2012, subsequent to the Examiner’s Answer before us. Appeal 2012-007135 Application 12/146,940 3 OPINION Regarding claims 1 and 14, the independent claims involved in this appeal, the Examiner found that either of Wiggins’s flaps, 40, 50, interpreted as the recited, “supporting wrap,” “has a palm section coextensive with the front panel (when wrapped about the hand and wrist.” Ans. 4–5. Appellant correctly points out that “[t]he Examiner is [] mistaken in stating that the wrap overlies the front panel in use, when the wrap is wrapped about the palm and wrist. Neither flap 40 nor flap 50 is wrapped across any part of the palm of the hand.” Reply Br. 3; Wiggins col. 3, ll. 3–18, Fig. 1. To the extent that some small portion of flaps 40 or 50 may overlie some small portion of Wiggins’s front surface 20 when wrapped—an arrangement that is not clearly depicted or described in Wiggins’s Specification or Figures— that portion is not “coextensive with a front piece” that is “coextensive with” (claim 1), or one that “overlie[s]” (claim 14), “the palm of a wearer’s hand.” As all the rejections before us are premised upon an incorrect reading of Wiggins, or the Examiner’s failure to consider the claim language discussed above, the Examiner’s rejections cannot be sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED pgc