Ex Parte Rondina

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

14685724 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
14/685,724 04/14/2015 Nancy K. Rondina 1245 001 302 0201 1094
37211 7590 12/01/2017
BASCH & NICKERSON LLP
1751 Penfield Road
PENFIELD, NY 14526
EXAMINER
WOOD, KIMBERLY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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):
u sptomail @ bnpatentlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NANCY K. RONDINA
Appeal 2017-002505
Application 14/685,724
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant, Nancy
K. Rodina. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002505
Application 14/685,724
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a furniture leg sock. Abstract. Claim
1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A furniture leg protective sock to prevent scraping of a floor
by furniture having a furniture leg, the furniture leg having a
bottom surface for engaging the floor and a side surface
substantially orthogonal to the bottom surface, the sock
comprising:
expandable non-friction material; and
friction material;
said expandable non-friction material allowing the bottom
surface of the furniture leg to slide across the floor;
said expandable non-friction material including,
a top portion having an interior surface, an exterior surface
and an opening to slip the sock onto the furniture leg, a closed
bottom portion having an interior surface and an exterior surface,
said closed bottom portion covering the bottom surface of the
furniture leg and the floor when said closed bottom portion
engages the bottom surface of the furniture leg, and a middle
portion having an interior surface and an exterior surface,
said middle portion extending between said opening of
said top portion and said closed bottom portion, said middle
portion engaging the side surface of the furniture leg;
said middle portion being substantially orthogonal, when
said closed bottom portion and said middle portion engage the
furniture leg, to said closed bottom portion;
said friction material being formed on a first portion of
said interior surface of said closed bottom portion of said
expandable non-friction material;
said friction material being formed on a first portion of
said interior surface of said middle portion of said expandable
non-friction material;
a second portion of said interior surface of said closed
bottom portion of said expandable non-friction material and said
friction material formed on said first portion of said interior
surface of said closed bottom portion engaging the bottom
surface of the furniture leg;
2
Appeal 2017-002505
Application 14/685,724
a second portion of said interior surface of said middle
bottom portion of said expandable non-friction material and said
friction material formed on said first portion of said interior
surface of said middle bottom portion engaging the side surface
of the furniture leg;
said friction material formed on said first portion of said
interior surface of said closed bottom portion of said expandable
non-friction material minimizing, when the furniture leg is
moved across the floor, slippage of the sock parallel to the
bottom surface of the furniture leg by providing friction
therebetween without said friction material penetrating an
envelope in the furniture leg;
said friction material formed on said first portion of said
interior surface of said middle portion of said expandable non­
friction material minimizing, when the furniture leg is moved
across the floor, slippage of the sock parallel to the side surface
of the furniture leg by providing friction therebetween without
said friction material penetrating an envelope in the furniture leg;
said friction material enhancing the friction between the
sock and the furniture leg without said friction material
penetrating an envelope in the furniture leg;
said exterior surface of said top portion, closed bottom
portion, and said middle portion being without any of said
friction material thereon;
said second portion of the interior surface of the closed
bottom portion of the expandable non-friction material being
without any of the friction material thereon;
said second portion of the interior surface of the middle
bottom portion of the expandable non-friction material being
without any of the friction material thereon;
said closed bottom portion including an overcast seam to
provide a cushion between the furniture leg and the floor.
REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of the comment posted by catlover-poophater (13:24
June 12, 2006), http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/treasure/
3
Appeal 2017-002505
Application 14/685,724
msg038525613055.html? (“GardenWeb”) and Kiska (US 5,533,591; issued
July 9, 1996).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner found GardenWeb
inherently teaches all of the recited limitations, except that the friction
material is applied to interior surface of the leg protector, for which the
Examiner relied on the teachings of Kiska. Final Act. 2—5. The Examiner
also found that, although neither GardenWeb nor Kiska teaches or suggests
that the recited friction material is on the interior bottom and middle portions
of the leg protector, “such a modification is a matter of engineering design
choice.” Id. at 4—5 (citing Spec. 1 50).
We agree with Appellant that the rejection fails to set forth articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to place Kiska’s deformable
hemispheres, used in a ladder cap, into old socks placed under bed posts,
taught in GardenWeb. The teachings of Kiska and the knowledge of the
Examiner (see Ans. 16) do not provide a reason, absent hindsight, to apply
the elastic deformable hemispheres from the ladder cap disclosed in Kiska to
the socks taught by GardenWeb. See App. Br. 23. The Examiner relies on
column 4, line 17, of Kiska, which states that clip hemispheres serve to act
as a catch or stop to prevent a ladder rail cap from otherwise sliding off the
rail top under forces normally experienced by the laddercap rail in the
operation of the ladder. Kiska col. 4:17—22. We disagree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that, based on the cited teaching in Kiska, it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified
the old sock taught in GardenWeb “to have included the friction material on
4
Appeal 2017-002505
Application 14/685,724
the inside middle and bottom interior surfaces of the sock for the purpose of
conforming to the leg and fitting tightly to the leg and acting as a catch or
stop to prevent the sock from otherwise sliding off the furniture leg under
the action of forces normally experienced when the sock in the operation of
the furniture leg.” Final Act. 4—5. Moreover, the Examiner relied solely on
Appellant’s Specification for evidence regarding the location of Kiska’s
friction material in the GardenWeb sock. Id.
In view of the above considerations,2 we agree with the Appellant that
a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and that the
rejection as presented is based on impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well
as dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Appellant raises additional arguments in the Appeal Brief. Because the
identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional
arguments.
5