Ex Parte McCrane

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12842411 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
A-75299 4027
EXAMINER
SUTTON, ANDREW W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/842,411 07/23/2010
40461 7590 03/20/2017
Law Offices of Edward S. Wright
1259 El Camino Real, No. 400
Menlo Park, CA 94025
David Patrick McCrane
03/20/2017 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 DAVID PATRICK MCCRANE
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Patrick McCrane (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 16—19, 21—25,
and 27—32.1,2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is McCrane, Inc., dba
Harbinger. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 11—15, 20, and 26 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected
base claim and indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A glove for gripping an object, comprising a palm
section that overlies the palm side of the hand of person
wearing the glove, a back section that overlies the back of the
hand, stalls for receiving the fingers and thumb, a tab affixed to
and extending from the lower margin of the palm section which
can be pulled in a downward direction to tension the palm
section, and means for holding the tab in a pulled position to
maintain tension in the palm section.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—5, 28—30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Addington (US 6,658,669 Bl, issued Dec. 9,
2003).
2) Claims 6—10, 16—19, 21—25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Addington, Taliento
(US 2008/0282445 Al, published Nov. 20, 2008), and Tseng (US
2005/0229286 Al, published Oct. 20, 2005).
3) Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Addington.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claims 1—5 and 32
The Examiner finds that Addington discloses all the limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner specifically finds that Addington
discloses tabs, adjacent to arrow 47 in Addington’s Figure 2, that “are
2
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
affixed to the palm section 30 as they are attached to the glove.” Ans. 4
(citing Addington, Fig. 2). Appellant contends this finding is erroneous
because Addington does not disclose “a tab affixed to and extending from
the lower margin of the palm section.” Appeal Br. 7.
Addington discloses tension straps 25 located “between the inner and
outer glove layers and extending from a first connection 28 (shown in FIGS.
2, 4, and 5).” Addington, col. 5,11. 39-41. Tension straps 25 exit “the glove
lining at glove openings 35 and terminate[d] in anchoring tabs 37.” Id. at
col. 5,1. 67 to col. 6,1. 1; see also id. Fig. 2.
Claim 1 requires the tab to be “affixed to and extending from the
lower margin of the palm section.” While we appreciate the Examiner’s
reference to Addington’s tab 37, the Examiner has not directed us to any
disclosure in Addington establishing that tab 37 is affixed to the lower
margin of the palm section. The Examiner’s finding that Addington
discloses a tab affixed to the lower margin of the palm section as recited in
claim 1 is not supported by Addington. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2—5 and 32 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.). We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2—5 and 32 for the same reasons stated for
claim 1.
Claims 28—30
The Examiner finds that Addington discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 28 including “a strap 39 that wraps about the wrist and
the lower portion of the palm section with a portion of the tab [37] capable
of being folded up over the strap to hold the tab in place.” Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
Appellant contends that Addington does not disclose “a portion of such a tab
folded up over a wrist strap.” Appeal Br. 9.
Addington discloses that strap 39 and “the surface of anchor tab 37,
may be made of complementary VELCRO hook and loop type, fastening
material.” Addington, col. 6,1. 66 to col. 7,1. 1. Addington also discloses
that straps 39 are “wrapped over the anchor tabs 37, in their adjusted
position, locking the anchor tab[s] in place.” Id. at col. 7,11. 3^4 (emphasis
added); see also Fig. 5. The complementary VELCRO fastening materials
on the surfaces of strap 39 and tabs 37 are arranged so that adjacent surfaces
of strap 39 and tabs 37 will be fastened to each other when strap 39 is
wrapped over tabs 37. It is not clear from Addington that tabs 37 are of
sufficient length to be extended beyond the end of strap 39 and folded up
over strap 39 as required by claim 28. See id., Fig. 5. Even if tabs 37 are of
sufficient length to be folded up over strap 39, the fastening material on
straps 39 would not be adjacent to the complementary mating surface of tabs
37 and tabs 37 would, therefore, not be fastened to strap 39. The Examiner’s
finding that Addington discloses a tab capable of being folded up over the
strap to hold the tab in place is, thus, not supported by Addington.
Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Claims 29 and 30 depend from claim 28. Appeal Br., App. A
(Claims App.). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 for the
same reasons stated for claim 28.
Rejection 2
Claims 6—10
Claim 6 recites, inter alia, “an inner glove having a lower palm
section of non-stretchable material and an upper palm section of stretchable
4
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
material.” Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
Addington discloses most of the limitations of claim 6 but not “the material
of the glove and its stretchability.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Taliento discloses a “glove having a palm portion 14 and a back portion 12
made of a combination of leather (inelastic) and lycra (elastic).” Id. The
Examiner concludes it would be obvious to modify “Taliento to provide [a]
lower palm being a non-stretchable material and the upper palm being
stretchable through routine experimentation to provide a desirable fit and
wear to the palm of the glove.” Id. at 5—6.
Appellant contends that Taliento does not disclose a glove with a
lower palm section of non-stretchable material and an upper palm section of
stretchable material as recited in claim 6. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues
that even if routine experimentation would lead to a glove with the materials
recited in claim 6, such a glove would not have the other features recited in
claim 6. Id. at 12—13.
Taliento discloses glove 10 with palm portion 14 that can be “made of
leather, synthetic leather, heavy mesh or Lycra®.” Taliento 125. Taliento
also discloses that palm portion 14 can be made from “a combination of
heavy mesh, Lycra®, leather, synthetic leather, and/or other suitable
materials.” Id. From this description we understand that Taliento discloses
making the entirety of palm portion 14 from a non-stretchable material, such
as leather, a stretchable material such as Lycra®, or a combination of a
stretchable material and a non-stretchable material, such as leather and
Lycra®. The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Taliento that
palm portion 14 is divided into portions and one portion is made from a
stretchable material and a different portion is made from a non-stretchable
5
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
material. Nor has the Examiner provided sufficient reasoning to support the
assertion that it would have been obvious to modify Taliento by “routine
experimentation” to provide a glove with a lower palm section of non-
stretchable material and an upper palm section of stretchable material. We,
thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 because it is not supported by
evidence and rational underpinnings. Claims 7—10 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 6. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.). We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 7—10 for the same reasons stated for claim 6.
Claims 16—19 and 21
Claim 16 contains the same limitations as claim 6 that the glove
comprises a lower palm section of non-stretchable material and an upper
palm section of stretchable material. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.).
The Examiner rejects claim 16 based on the same combination of
Addington, Taliento, and Tseng, and the same reasoning, as for claim 6.
Final Act. 7. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 for the
same reasons stated above for claim 6. Claims 17—19 and 21 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 16. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.). We
do not sustain the rejection of claims 17—19 and 21 for the same reasons as
for claim 16.
Claims 22—25
Claim 22 contains the same limitations as claim 6 that the glove
comprises a lower palm section of non-stretchable material and an upper
palm section of stretchable material. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.).
The Examiner rejects claim 22 based on the same combination of
Addington, Taliento, and Tseng, and the same reasoning, as for claim 6.
Final Act. 7—8. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 22 for
6
Appeal 2014-009759
Application 12/842,411
the same reasons stated above for claim 6. Claims 23—25 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 22. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.). We do not
sustain the rejection the rejection of claims 23—25 for the same reasons as for
claim 22.
Rejection 3
The Examiner rejects claim 31 as unpatentable over Addington. Final
Act. 8. Claim 31 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br., App. A (Claims App.).
The Examiner does not direct us to any additional disclosure in Addington in
the rejection of claim 31 that would cure the defects in the rejection of claim
1. Final Act. 8. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 31 for the
same reasons stated for claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 16—19, 21—25, and
27—32 is reversed.
REVERSED
7