Ex Parte Kendall

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2017

13214518 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2017)

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.
13/214,518 08/22/2011 Patricia M. Kendall 41779-1 1495
144899 7590 05/04/2017
Ward Law Office LLC
120 1/2 S. Washington Street, Suite 207
Tiffin, OH 44883
EXAMINER
COX, STEPHANIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2017 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):
j ake @ wardpatent. com
jenn@wardpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICIA M. KENDALL
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518 1
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 10-12, and 18-20 of Application
13/214,518 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Appellant seeks reversal
of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Patricia M. Kendall is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
BACKGROUND
The ’518 Application describes a wreath having one or more
permanent decorations and one or more removable decorations releasably
coupled thereto. Spec. ^ 7, 18. Appellant characterizes the invention as
follows:
The invention sought to be patented is a convertible wreath
having at least one permanent decoration and at least one
removable decoration, as well as a decoration kit for the
convertible wreath and a method for producing the convertible
wreath. The convertible wreath, the decoration kit, and the
method of decorating the wreath of the invention have certain
advantages over prior art wreathes, namely: maximization of the
aesthetic and artistic appeal, independent of an artistic ability of
each user; and providing a customizable appearance capable of
[] many different concepts or motifs.
Appeal Br. 6.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’518 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (disputed
limitation italicized):
1. A wreath comprising:
a substantially annular base having an innermost perimeter and
an outermost perimeter, the innermost perimeter defining a
central hole of the base, the base having at least one permanent
decoration coupled to the base at a permanent connection area
of the base to cover an entirety of the outermost perimeter of the
base, wherein the at least one permanent decoration is glued in
place and is not releaseably coupled to the base, the base further
having a predetermined, unobstructed area disposed between the
innermost perimeter and the outermost perimeter of the base,
wherein an entirety of the unobstructed area is not covered by the
at least one permanent decoration; and
at least one removable decoration releaseably coupled to the
predetermined, unobstructed area of the base at an attachment
area disposed in the unobstructed area,
2
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
wherein the attachment area is at an end of a riser that extends to
a location disposed laterally outwardly from the base a
predetermined distance, the riser permanently attached to the
base and the end being a portion of the riser that is laterally
farthest from the base, the location disposed beyond a facial
coverage of the permanent decorations so that the attachment
area is not covered by the permanent decoration,
wherein the base further includes a first coupling device disposed
at the attachment area, and the removable decoration includes a
second coupling device to releaseably couple the removable
decoration to the base at the attachment area with the first
coupling device, and
wherein the first coupling device and the second coupling device
include one of a hook and loop coupling system and a magnetic
coupling system.
Id. at 26.
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 10-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Glenn,2 Matesi,3
and Errington.4 Final Act. 2-3.
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Glenn, Matesi, Errington,
and Moody.5 Final Act. 7.
2 US 6,667,079 Bl, issued Dec. 23, 2003.
3 US 3,591,442, issued July 6, 1971.
4 US 2006/0117629 Al, published June 8, 2006.
5 US 2006/0210728 Al, published Sept. 21, 2006.
3
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 10-12, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons stated on pages 3-7 of the Final
Action.
Regarding claim 1, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in
finding that Glenn discloses a wreath with “permanent decoration” that
“cover[s] an entirety of the outermost perimeter of the [substantially
annular] base.” App. Br. 14-16 (citing Glenn Figs. 1, 2). Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Glenn discloses “a
predetermined, unobstructed area” to which “at least one removable
decoration [is] releasably coupled.” Id. at 16-17. Appellant further argues
that neither the pins nor the plant holder box of Glenn constitute a “riser”
because (1) the pins do not have an attachment area located beyond a facial
coverage of permanent decorations and (2) the box has a front wall and
therefore similarly lacks the required attachment area and also is not
permanently attached to the wire frame. Id. at 17-19.
Regarding the combination of Glenn with Matesi and Errington,
Appellant asserts that neither Matesi nor Errington cure the deficiencies of
Glenn. Id. at 14-22. In addition, Appellant contends that the Examiner has
not articulated a reason to modify Glenn’s pins or box with Errington’s
magnets and hook-and-loop fasteners, which attach alligator clips to a frame,
and that the combination does not disclose the required “first coupling
device disposed at the attachment area” that is “at an end of a riser.” Id. at
17-22. Finally, Appellant contends that the combination does not disclose
the “removable decoration” required by claim 1 because the plant material
and seasonal objects of Glenn lack a second coupling device which is not
cured by the secondary references. Id. at 22.
4
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
The Examiner responds that the artificial foliage of Glenn “remain[s]
on the wreath throughout each season and therefore it is obvious to make
such decoration permanent” in view of Matesi which “show[s] a different
means of attaching decorations to wreath frames (e.g. through the use of
glue) and not specifically the permanent decorations.” Ans. 10. The
Examiner also finds that “Glenn teaches that the artificial foliage is
connected all over the base. Therefore, the artificial foliage of Glenn is
considered to cover the outermost perimeter of the base (see Figure 3).” Id.
The Examiner further finds that the pins or risers of Glenn must be
unobstructed because “one cannot reasonably attach[] the decorations if one
cannot see the area of attachment” and “Glenn does not state that the pins
are covered by the artificial foliage.” Id. at 10-11. Regarding the required
coupling device at the end of a riser, the Examiner finds that:
Glenn and Errington teach attaching removable decorations to
wreaths in order to provide a decorative wreath. This is simply
substitution of one known attachment device for another and
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Glenn to use hook and loop or magnetic fastening
means
for the purpose of attaching decorations to a wreath as taught by Errington.
Id. at 12.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Glenn’s artificial foliage is
not permanent because Glenn illustrates a bare wire frame in Figs. 1 and 2
“before the artificial foliage and other decorations are removably disposed
thereon” and describes adding the artificial foliage to the frame. Reply Br. 5
(citing Glenn 3:37-39). Appellant also contends that “[tjhere is no teaching
or suggestion in Matesi to permanently attach any of the decorations by
glue.” Id. at 7. Regarding Glenn’s foliage covering the entirety of the
5
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
outermost perimeter of the base, Appellant contends this finding is in error
because Figs. 2 and 3 show otherwise, specifically, “a plant holder (30) that
sits removably within, and when filled with plants covers a bottom portion
of, the outer perimeter of the wire frame base (14).” Id. at 8. Regarding the
pins and box of Glenn being risers, Appellant argues that pins 22 are
covered by foliage 52 in Figs. 2 and 3 and that front wall 30 of plant holder
126 does not have any attachment features. Id. at 10. Appellant also argues
that Errington describes fasteners in a different location than claimed. Id. at
11.
We find Appellant’s argument that Glenn’s foliage, which the
Examiner finds is a permanent decoration, does not “cover an entirety of the
outermost perimeter of the base” persuasive of reversible error. Glenn’s Fig.
3 is shown below:
6 Glenn identifies the plant holder as item 12 and subsequently as item 14,
however, item 14 is identified earlier in Glenn as loop 14. Glenn 17-32.
6
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
Fig. 3
Fig. 3 is a front view of the wreath.
Fig. 3 is cited by the Examiner as disclosing the permanent decoration
“covering] an entirety of the outermost perimeter of the base” element of
claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10. However, as argued by Appellant, the
outermost perimeter of Glenn’s wreath is not entirely covered by foliage 52
because it is partially covered by plant material 54 that is held by Glenn’s
box. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner does not separately find that
foliage 52 covers the perimeter of the wreath underneath the plant material
54 or plant holder 12. The Examiner also does not explain how foliage 52
could “cover the outermost perimeter of the base” as recited in claim 1 given
the presence of plant holder 12 on frame 10. In order to determine whether
Glenn discloses or suggests covering the entirety of the outermost perimeter
with artificial foliage 52, we consider the underlying frame itself shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. After reviewing Fig. 3 together with the wreath frame shown
in Figs. 1 and 2, we are convinced by Appellant that Glenn’s foliage 52 does
7
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
not cover the region of the perimeter where Glenn’s box is located. Fig. 1 is
shown below:
In Fig. 1, plant holder 12 rests on circular outer loop 14 of frame 10
and lower section 24 of front loop 18 extends forward for insertion of plant
holder 12. Glenn Fig. 1, 3:17-32. Therefore, a portion of the outermost
perimeter of Glenn’s frame is covered by the plant holder and would not be
available to be covered entirely by artificial foliage 52 in Glenn’s Fig. 3.
Accordingly, we determine that foliage 52 does not cover the entirety of the
outermost perimeter of base 10. Because each independent claim requires
that “an entirety of the outermost perimeter of the base” is covered with the
permanent decoration(s), and because the Examiner does not rely on the
secondary references to cure the deficiencies of Glenn, we find that the
Examiner reversibly erred in finding claims 1, 4, 10-12, and 18-20 obvious
over the combination of Glenn, Matesi, and Errington.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 4, 10-12, and 18-20.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1 is a perspective view of the wreath frame.
8
Appeal 2016-003310
Application 13/214,518
Rejection 2. Appellant argues for reversal of the obviousness
rejection of claims 2 and 3, which each depend from claim 1, for the
additional reason that “the decorative ornaments (14) of Moody are also
removable, and are not ‘permanent’ decorations as recited in dependent
Claim 3.” Appeal Br. 24.
The Examiner responds that Moody is not relied upon for teaching
permanent decorations. Ans. 13.
Because Moody also does not cure the deficiencies of Glenn, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3 for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-
4, 10-12, and 18-20.
REVERSED
9