Ex Parte Harada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

12161053 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

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.
12/161,053 04/20/2010 Kenichi Harada 080265 7870
23850 7590 02/11/2016
KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP
1420 K Street, N.W.
4th Floor
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ANNIS, KHALED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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 KENICHI HARADA
____________

Appeal 2013-010953
Application 12/161,053
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1–3 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yang
(JP 07-310212 A, pub. Nov. 28, 1995) and Salvatore (US 3,077,605, iss.
Feb. 19, 1963). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2013-010953
Application 12/161,053
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to multi-layered garments. Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An inner garment comprising:
an outer-clothing-like main body portion made of thin
texture; and
a fur portion attached to the main body portion to extend
between collars and bottoms thereof, wherein
an open-front outer garment is made decorative with the
fur portion by overlapping the inner garment with the outer
garment, thereby exposing the fur portion which extends
between collars and bottoms of the outer garment for view.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Yang discloses all of the elements of claim 1
except for explicit disclosure of an inner garment that has front and back
panels and sleeves to resemble an outer-clothing-like main body portion
made of thin texture. Final Action 4–5. The Examiner relies on Salvatore
as disclosing an inner garment with thin panels and sleeves. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have manufactured Yang’s
inner garment with panels and sleeves as taught by Salvatore. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to insulate areas to the back and arm regions of the wearer and
provide two different garments, both of which would be available to the
consumer. Id. at 6.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s rejection by arguing, among other
things, that Yang’s fur does not extend to the bottoms of the garment as
claimed. Id. at 10. In particular, Appellant argues that claim 1 requires that
the fur portion of the inner garment extends, not only to the bottoms of the
Appeal 2013-010953
Application 12/161,053
3
inner garment main body portion, but also to the bottoms of the outer
garment. Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds by stating that Yang illustrates that the fur
section is exposed and extends from the collar bottom to the inner garment
bottom. Ans. 2. However, neither the Final Action, nor the Examiner’s
Answer, address the limitation of claim 1 directed to the fur portion of the
inner garment extending to the bottom of the outer garment.
Inasmuch as the Examiner’s rejection fails to adduce evidence that the
prior art discloses or suggests exposing a fur portion of an inner garment that
extends between collars and bottoms of an outer garment for view, as
claimed, the Examiner has failed to articulate a prima facie case of
unpatentability.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 1–3.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–3 is reversed.
REVERSED