Ex Parte Kusjanovic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13398766 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/398,766 02/16/2012 Henry James Kusjanovic 123746.00001 8721
72535 7590 02/27/2017
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP STAMFORD
CANTERBURY GREEN
201 BROAD STREET, 9TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
EXAMINER
ANNIS, KHALED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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 HENRY JAMES KUSJANOVIC
Appeal 2015-0015191
Application 13/398,7662
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 16,
2012), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug. 29, 2014), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 10, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final
Action,” mailed May 27, 2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,”
mailed Sept. 15, 2014).
2 According to Appellant, Henry James Kusjanovic is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-001519
Application 13/398,766
According to Appellant, the invention relates “to gloves that provide
better grip and finger dexterity while keeping hands warm.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1 and 16 are the only independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br.,
Claims App. We reproduce both independent claims, below, as illustrative
of the claims on appeal.
1. A glove comprising:
an outer glove lining adapted to cover a hand, fingers and
a thumb of a user; and
an inner glove lining attached to the outer glove lining at
least in a palm-side fingertip and a thumb tip region thereof,
wherein the outer glove lining includes an opening only at
an entire fingerprint area on the palm-side fingertip and the
thumb tip region of the glove exposing the inner glove lining
only at the entire fingerprint area,
wherein the inner glove lining is joined to the outer glove
lining around the opening on the palm-side fingertip and the
thumb tip region of the glove, and
wherein the inner glove lining is joined to the outer glove
lining such that the inner glove lining is exposed through the
opening of the outer glove lining, the exposed inner glove lining
acting as a gripping surface to provide finger dexterity to the
user.
16. A glove comprising:
an outer glove lining adapted to cover a hand, fingers and
a thumb of a user; and
an inner glove lining attached to the outer glove lining at
a palm-side fingertip and a thumb tip region thereof,
wherein the outer glove lining includes an opening on the
palm-side fingertip and the thumb tip region of the glove
exposing the inner glove lining,
wherein the inner glove lining is located only at the palm-
side fingertip and the thumb tip region of the outer glove lining,
2
Appeal 2015-001519
Application 13/398,766
wherein the inner glove lining is joined to the outer glove
lining around the opening on the palm-side fingertip and the
thumb tip region of the glove, and
wherein the inner glove lining is joined to the outer glove
lining such that the inner glove lining is exposed through the
opening of the outer glove lining, the exposed inner glove lining
acting as a gripping surface to provide finger dexterity to the
user.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1,3,4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Ceresia (US 5,548,844, iss. Aug. 27, 1996).
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ceresia.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, among other features,
“the outer glove lining includes an opening only at an entire fingerprint area
on the palm-side fingertip and the thumb tip region of the glove exposing the
inner glove lining only at the entire fingerprint area.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on Ceresia’s Figure 2 and
column 3, lines 51—60, to disclose this limitation. Final Action 3; Answer 2.
We agree with Appellant, however, that “[t]he figure[] of Ceresia show[s]
and Ceresia discusses openings formed in the inner glove layer.'1'’ Appeal
Br. 7 (emphasis added). In particular, column 3, lines 10-14 of Ceresia
states, with respect to Figure 2, that “a plurality of openings 18 may be
selectively formed on inner glove layer 14 so as to expose corresponding
3
Appeal 2015-001519
Application 13/398,766
portions of outer glove layer 12 through the plurality of openings 18.”
Ceresia, col. 3,11. 10-14.
We note that the portion of Ceresia identified by the Examiner does
state that “openings 18 may be selectively formed on outer glove layer 12 so
as to expose corresponding portions of the outer surface 24 of inner glove
layer 14 through the plurality of openings.” Ceresia, col. 3,11. 50-53.
However, we agree with Appellant that this portion of “Ceresia broadly
teaches that the openings are located at the tips of the fingers and does not
teach, suggest[,] or contemplate the specific positioning of the openings
relative to the fingerprint area of the fingers.” Appeal Br. 7. Thus, for these
reasons, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, and 11.
Obviousness rejection
With respect to claims 8, 9, and 12, these claims depend from
independent claim 1, the rejection of which we do not sustain. Inasmuch as
the Examiner relies on Ceresia alone to reject these dependent claims, and,
thus, does not cite an additional reference that remedies the deficiency in the
rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9,
and 12.
With respect to independent claim 16, as set forth above, the claim
recites, in part, “the inner glove lining is located only at the palm-side
fingertip and the thumb tip region of the outer glove lining.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. The Examiner determines that
Ceresia does not explicitly discloses that the inner glove
lining/layer is located only at the palm-side fingertip and the
thumb tip region of the outer glove lining/layer. However, since
[sic] Ceresia teaches that the inner layer can be smaller than the
4
Appeal 2015-001519
Application 13/398,766
outer layer, it is obvious that an ordinary skilled in the art would
be motivated to provide an inner layer only at the palm side
fingertips ([fjingers to include a thumb). Having an inner layer
only at the fingertips of the palm side will benefit the wearer in
hot climate making the glove more comfortable in hot/warm
climate because fewer layers are used on the remainder of the
glove, for example the entire glove less the palm side of the
fingertips. In addition, it will reduce weight and material usage.
Final Action 7. We agree with Appellant, however, that the Examiner’s
modification appears to be based solely on impermissible hindsight. See
Appeal Br. 9—13. In particular, we agree with Appellant that
Ceresia teaches that “[bjecause inner glove layer 14 is adapted
for attachment within outer glove layer 12, the size of inner glove
layer 14 is preferably slightly smaller than outer glove layer 12.”
.. . Thus, the inner glove layer is merely dimensioned smaller to
fit within the outer glove layer and continues to maintain a
structure which surrounds the entire hand of the user.
Appeal Br. 11, citing Ceresia col. 3,11. 20—23 (citation omitted). The
Examiner does not point to anything in Ceresia that discloses or suggests
that an inner glove lining is located only at a palm-side fingertip and a
thumb tip region of an outer glove lining, but, rather, it appears that only
Appellant’s disclosure teaches such an arrangement. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16.
5
Appeal 2015-001519
Application 13/398,766
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16.
REVERSED
6