Ex Parte Nunn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 2011

11650365 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 2011)

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.
11/650,365 01/08/2007 Daron D. Nunn 06/158 8326
7590 05/06/2011
Timothy T. Tyson
Freilich, Hornbaker & Rosen
Suite 1220
10960 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024-3702
EXAMINER
QUINN, RICHALE LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2011 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 DARON D. NUNN
____________

Appeal 2009-011021
Application 11/650,365
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011021
Application 11/650,365

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daron D. Nunn (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) claim 1 as
anticipated by Bowcut (US 3,800,330, issued Apr. 2, 1974) and under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 4, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Bowcut and Kiely
(US 2002/0129470 A1, published Sep. 19, 2002) and claim 9 as
unpatentable over Bowcut, Kiely1, and Cookman (US 2,923,009, issued Feb.
2, 1960).2 Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 have been canceled. Appellant presented
oral argument on May 3, 2011. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to breakaway sport pants that can be
removed rapidly by unzipping catchless zippers. Spec. 1, ll. 15-16.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. Breakaway sport pants, comprising:
a front portion having a right side and an opposite left side;
a back portion having a right side and an opposite left side;
a right zipper selectively connecting said right side of said front
portion to said right side of said back portion, said right zipper having
a right zipper slide and a right zipper pull tab, said right zipper not

1 Although the heading of this rejection refers to “Lin,” since the
Examiner explains that patent publication “20[0]2/0129470” refers to Kiely,
we shall consider this to be a typographical error. Ans. 2.
2 Although in the Final Rejection, mailed Dec. 11, 2007, the Examiner
rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply
with the written description requirement, since the Examiner did not
maintain this rejection in the Examiner’s Answer, for the purpose of this
appeal, we shall consider that it has been withdrawn.
Appeal 2009-011021
Application 11/650,365

3
having a catch mechanism for preventing said right zipper slide from
unzipping unless said right zipper pull tab is pulled; and,
a left zipper selectively connecting said left side of said front
portion to said left side of said back portion, said left zipper having a
left zipper slide and a left zipper pull tab, said left zipper not having a
catch mechanism for preventing said left zipper slide from unzipping
unless said left zipper pull tab is pulled.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

ANALYSIS
Both independent claims 1 and 7 require a right and a left zipper “not
having a catch mechanism.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner
takes the position that because (1) Bowcut does not disclose whether its slide
fastener is a conventional fastener and (2) catch mechanisms are not shown
in the figures and the description of Bowcut, the device of Bowcut lacks
catch mechanisms, as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 7.
Ans. 3 and 6.
We disagree with the Examiner’s position because Bowcut
specifically teaches the use of snaps 29 that “augment the lock of the slide
fastener against unintentional opening.” Bowcut, col. 3, l. 37 through col. 4,
l. 1. Emphasis added. Hence, we agree with Appellant that in contrast to
Appellant’s claimed invention, because slide fasteners 21, 22 of Bowcut
include a lock, they include a catch mechanism. Reply Br. 2. As such, the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bowcut
cannot be sustained.
Appeal 2009-011021
Application 11/650,365

4
With respect to the rejection of claims 4, 7, and 8, the addition of
Kiely does not remedy the deficiencies of Bowcut as described above.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bowcut and Kiely likewise cannot be sustained.
Similarly, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 over the combined
teachings of Bowcut, Kiely, and Cookman, the addition of Cookman does
not remedy the deficiencies of Bowcut and Kiely as described above.
Hence, the rejection of claim 9 also cannot be sustained.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, and 7-9 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls