Ex Parte Phipps et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13227901 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/227,901 09/08/2011
7590 06/29/2016
Charles E. Phipps, Esq.
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
Suite 2200
2200 Ross A venue
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Emerson Spalding Phipps
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
9900001.1000.1123 6453
EXAMINER
MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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 EMERSON SPALDING PHIPPS
and
CHARLES EDWARD PHIPPS
Appeal2014-002121
Application 13/227,901
Technology Center 3700
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 2. An oral hearing was
conducted on June 24, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002121
Application 13/227,901
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to protective helmets and more
particularly to helmets that can absorb, at least in part, an impact force."
Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is the only independent claim and recites:
1. A protective helmet for protecting the head of a user
compnsmg:
an outer layer;
an inner layer connected to said outer layer by multiple
connectors wherein each said connector has a longitudinal axis;
each of said connectors being under tension along said
longitudinal axis;
wherein said connectors absorb energy from an impact
force by resisting further tension along said longitudinal axis;
and
wherein said connectors allow said outer layer and said
inner layer to move relative to each other and reduce the amount
of force from said impact that is transferred to the head of a user.
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9-20 as anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Cripton (US 2010/0101005 Al; pub. Apr. 29, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cripton and Liu (US 5,204,998; iss. Apr. 27, 1993).
The Examiner rejected claim 8 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cripton and Moore (US 2005/0050617 Al; pub. Mar. 10,
2005).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
2
Appeal2014-002121
Application 13/227,901
The Examiner finds that Cripton discloses the structure recited in
claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds that Cripton discloses a protective
helmet having outer shell 101 and inner shell 100 connected through path-
motion guide mechanisms 106 and 106' which each have a longitudinal axis.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds that path-motion guide mechanism
106 may include a spring 134a "which is disclosed as controllable to affect
the shock absorbing nature of the helmet device, clearly disclosing being
'held under tension' as claimed." Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds that
Cripton discloses structure - namely the path-motion guide mechanism 106
and the spring 134a - capable of performing the various functions claim 1
recites. Id. at 2-3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Cripton
discloses the limitation "said connectors being under tension along said
longitudinal axis." Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner relies upon spring 134a as
the structure capable of performing such a function. Final Act. 2--'3.
However, we agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand spring 134a to be a part of what connects Cripton's
outer member 101 to inner member 100. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5; see also
Cripton Fig. 8A. Although the Examiner is correct that spring 134a may be
connected to path-motion guide mechanism 106, Final Act. 2, we do not
agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any structure
associated with guide mechanism 106 corresponds to the claimed connector.
Indeed, Cripton explains that the sole role of spring 134a is to bias
protrusion 103 such that it tends to stay in base portion 105 of slot 102.
Cripton i-f 70. Such function relates to the movement of Cripton's outer
member 101 relative to inner member 100; it does not play a role in
3
Appeal2014-002121
Application 13/227,901
connecting the two structures. If one were to remove spring 134a from the
Cripton device, outer member 101 would still be connected to inner member
100 via the engagement of protrusion 103 in slot 102.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1. As the Examiner's findings regarding the dependent claims do
not cure the deficiency we identify with respect to claim 1, see Final Act. 3-
6, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-20 which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
4