11931971 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

Ex Parte Jarvis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 19, 2012

11931971 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/931,971 10/31/2007 Christine W. Jarvis CXU-350-DIV(01-002) 1866 22827 7590 06/20/2012 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER RHEE, JANE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTINE W. JARVIS, ROBERT E. BENNETT, and BRIAN FREDERICK ____________________ Appeal 2010-010023 Application 11/931,971 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 41-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Obayashi1 in view of Webb2, and claims 50, 51, and 55 over those prior art 1 Obayashi et al., US 4,410,575, patented Oct. 18, 1983. 2 Webb, US 2,372,632, patented Mar. 27, 1945. App App refer U.S. in th Web join joine Fig. 3 Joh eal 2010-0 lication 11 ences furth C. § 6(b). We REV The issu e Examine b? We answ The clai substrates. d by the ta Accordin 3) are inse nson et al 10023 /931,971 er in view ERSE. e on appea r’s reason er this qu ms are dire One emb pe is show F g to the S rted within ., US 5,662 of Johnso l is: Have for combi estion in th cted to a m odiment o n in Figu ig. 3 is a pecificatio the oppo ,638, pate 2 n3. We h Appellan ning the te e affirmat ultilayer f the arran re 3, repro perspectiv n, the end site folds o nted Se. 2 ave jurisdi ts identifie achings o ive. stitchless gement of duced belo e view. s of two su f the tape , 1997. ction unde d a revers f Obayash seam using substrates w: bstrates ( (10) (Spec r 35 ible error i and a tape to to be 11 and 14; . 8:15-22 ; App App Figs form (Spe 1.6 m the f subs emb illus eal 2010-0 lication 11 . 3-4). Fig a first por c. 7:9-12). illimeters irst substra Upon ap trates (11) odiment of Fi . Claim trative and 41 connecti and a sec a second w a seam w w bonded t a first ad 10023 /931,971 ure 3 show tion (16), The first beyond th te (Claim plying hea and (14) ( the result g. 4 is a cr 41, with re reads as f . (Rejecte ng bond fo ond subst tape porti herein the idth, herein the o the first ditional w s tape (10 a second p tape portio e fabric e 41; Spec. t and pres Spec. 10:1 ing seam ( oss-section ference n ollows: d) A mult rmed betw rate [14] a on [17], an stitchless first subst tape portio idth such t 3 ) folded in ortion (17 n (16) ext dge, i.e., b 15:1-3). sure, the ta 0-11). Fig 70). Figu Fig. 4 al view o umerals fr ilayer stitc een at lea nd at least d a third t seam is a w rate [11] c n [16] acr hat the wi a “z-shap ), and a th ends a firs eyond the pe (10) fo ure 4 illu re 4 is repr f a welded om Figure hless seam st a first s a first tap ape portio elded sea omprises a oss the se dth of the ed configu ird portion t addition portion bo rms a seam strates one oduced be stitchless s 3 and 4, comprisi ubstrate [1 e portion [ n [18], m [70] ha surface th am width p first tape ration” to (18) al width of nded to with the low: seam is ng a 1] 16], ving at is lus App App (Cla tape havin 4 Thi requ page as su subs of O widt this i phra 41, f 4, th and a the s cann of th on ap outst shou Exam eal 2010-0 lication 11 portion t than the w millimet ims App. a Obayash . Figure 4 The Exa g a first p s wherein ire that the 14, line 2 pporting t trate width bayashi an h” as addit nterpretat se is also u irst where e seam wid lso includ ubstrate. T ot have a w e seam wi peal with anding qu ld resolve iner. 10023 /931,971 hat is bond seam widt herein the ers. t Br. 20 (f i discloses shows the miner ackn ortion wit clause is n first subs 8 to page 1 he limitati . Given t d Webb, i ional tape ion for pur nclear. T in clause; th include es the tape herefore, idth grea dth. Whil regard to estions of when the ed to the h,4 first additi ormatting lap weldi tape 11 be owledges h a bonded ot a pictur trate includ 5, line 2 o on (Br. 2), hat the Ex t appears t width (co poses of o he seam w Spec. 10:1 s the porti ’s additio the portio ter than th e our decis combining indefiniten application 4 first substr onal width and refere ng two en tween fab that Obay width and e of clarit e a “first f the Spec describes aminer and hat they ar mpare Br. ur review. idth is def 0-15; Fig. on of the t nal width b n of the tap e seam wid ion resolv the refere ess that th is returne ate surfac is at leas nce numer ds of fabri ric ends 1 ashi does additiona y. First, th additional ification, w an additio Appellan e interpret 3-5 with A Second, t ined by th 4 at 70). A ape bonde eyond tha e bonded th; it defi es the spec nces, it ap e Examin d to the ju e is greate t 1.6 als added. c using a b and 2. not teach a l width as e clause a width.” H hich App nal tape w ts focus on ing “addit ns. 8-9). he “such t e tape wid s shown d to the su t portion b to the sub nes only o ific quest pears ther er and App risdiction r ).) onding tape required ppears to owever, ellants cit idth, not a the tape ional We adopt hat” th (Claim in Figure bstrate onded to strate ne portion ion arising e are ellants of the e App App by cl tight toge stitch ordin (Web prov eal 2010-0 lication 11 aim 41, an stitched s ther with s The fabr The tape es 15 as s Accordin ary skill i b’s lower ide a wate 10023 /931,971 d turns to eam. In W titching 15 ic is opene end 13 is hown in F g to the E n the art to tape porti r tight seam Webb for ebb, two as shown d as show then folde igure 3, re xaminer, i provide O on that is f (Ans. 4- 5 this teachi fabrics 10, in Figure n in Figur d backwar produced b t would ha bayashi w olded at li 5). ng. Webb 11, and ta 1, reprodu e 2, reprod ds about l elow: ve been o ith Webb ne 16 back teaches a pe 12 are ced below uced belo ine 16 to c bvious to ’s longer t onto stitc water- stitched : w: over one of ape portion hes 15) to App App mad Obay and comb by W ends teach is we shap show eal 2010-0 lication 11 Appellan e the sugge ashi teach 8). Accord ination (B ebb becau of Obayas The Exa es bondin A prepo ll explain ed project n in Figur 10023 /931,971 ts contend sted modi es leaving ing to Ap r. 7-8). O se to do s hi (Br. 8-9 miner disa g the tape nderance o ed at page ions 12 an es 4-6. that one fication to tape ends pellants, O ne would o would d ). grees. Ac ends. f the evide s 3-5 of th d 13 of the 6 of ordinary Obayashi 12 and 13 bayashi te not have b estroy the cording to nce suppo e Brief. O tape abso skill in th ’s lap wel unbonded aches awa onded the function o Examiner rts Appell bayashi ex rb force w e art wou ded seam b (see, e.g. y from ma tape ends f the unbo the Obay ants posit plains tha hen they d ld not have ecause , Br. 3-5 king the as taught unded tape ashi ion. This t the fin- eform as Appeal 2010-010023 Application 11/931,971 7 This is effective for protecting the seam. Webb does not disclose bonding the fin-shaped projections, they remain loose so they can deform and dissipate force away from the seam. Therefore, the Examiner factually erred in finding that Obayashi bonds the tape ends. We agree with Appellants that the evidence fails to support combining the references as suggested by the Examiner. Webb requires that the tape be fully bonded to the substrates. Performing such bonding is not desired by Obayashi and would destroy the intended function of the unbonded tape ends. The Examiner’s application of Johnson in the additional rejection does not cure the above discussed deficiency. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cam