Ex Parte Grady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

14170783 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/170,783 02/03/2014
26201 7590 09/12/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James T. Grady
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
05918-0535002 1045
EXAMINER
LAVINDER, JACK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES T. GRADY, PETER IANNAZZI,
THOMAS O BRIEN, CLINTON DOWD, and
ANDREW COLLINS
Appeal2017-001642
Application 14/170,783
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
20-22, 28, 29, 31, and 32. No other claims are pending. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-001642
Application 14/170,783
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
20. A touch fastener product, comprising:
a flexible substrate having a surface with a characteristic
that varies across the surface, the surface comprising both a first
region and a second region adjacent the first region, the surface
characteristic varying to a greater degree within the second
region than within the first region; and
an array of fastening projections extending from a resin
layer, the resin layer having an edge disposed within, and
adjacent an exposed portion of, the first region of the substrate
surface.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 20-22, 28, 29, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b)
as being anticipated by Tachauer et al. (US 2005/0280175 Al; published
Dec. 22, 2005).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable in view of the combination of Tachauer and Curro et al. (US
7,682,686 B2; issued Mar. 23, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner "relies solely on the illustration
provided by Figure 4 of [Tachauer] to support the erroneous assertion that
'Tachauer discloses the claimed touch fastener including ... a flexible
substrate having a characteristic varying to a greater degree within the
second region th[ a ]n within the first region."' Appeal Br. 3--4 ( emphasis
omitted). According to Appellants, Tachauer' s Figure 4 does not provide
2
Appeal2017-001642
Application 14/170,783
adequate detail to "show the relative features the rejection relies upon."
Reply Br. 2.
We disagree with Appellants. As explained by the Examiner,
Tachauer discloses a touch fastener made of resin applied to a portion of a
substrate (the claimed "first area"), with other areas of substrate having no
resin (the claimed "second area"). Ans. 2-3; see Appeal Br. 3 (noting that
Tachauer discloses resin applied to a substrate; citing Tachauer ,r,r 1, 4, 16,
45, 57, 75). The Examiner explains, and we agree, that Tachauer discloses
applying resin to a portion of the first area of a substrate, thereby disclosing
a characteristic (porosity) varying to a greater degree within the second
region than within the first, as claimed. Ans. 2. Consistent with the
Examiner's findings, Appellants' Specification states that "the varying
surface characteristic may be porosity," among other things (Spec. 8: 15),
and the Specification explains that applying resin to a substrate fills pores in
the substrate (see, e.g., Spec. 13:13-22). Compare, e.g., Tachauer,r,r 16
( describing a substrate of sheet-form material that is porous), 78 ( stating that
"[d]ue to the porosity of sheet-form material," molten resin can be applied
onto and through the sheet-form material).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner does not rely solely
on Tachauer's Figure 4; at minimum, the Examiner's references to "resin
layer 115" and "substrate layer 40" (Ans. 2), which are not labeled in the
figure, plainly reference not only Figure 4, but also the related descriptions
of Figure 4. Notably, the Appeal Brief itself cites many of the relevant
disclosures in Tachauer, including paragraphs describing Tachauer's
characteristics of resin and substrate. See Appeal Br. 3 ( citing, e.g.,
Tachauer ,r,r 1, 4, 16, 45, 57, 7 5). Accordingly, reading claim 20 in light of
Appellants' Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Tachauer's
3
Appeal2017-001642
Application 14/170,783
disclosures of resin applied to a porous substrate disclose each limitation of
claim 20, including the disputed limitation. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 20. Regarding dependent claims 21, 22, 28, 29, 31, and
32, Appellants rely on the arguments advanced for claim 20, and we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of those claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 20-22, 28, 29, 31, and
32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4