Ex parte Shaalan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 1998

08094748 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 22, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte LINDA SHAALAN
__________
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,7481
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, COHEN and
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14, 19-21 and 23-32, which
constitute all of the claims remaining of record in the
application.
The appellant's invention is directed to a garment
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
2
folding apparatus. The subject matter before us on appeal is
illustrated by reference to claim 1, which reads as follows:
1. A removable garment folding apparatus which is
completely removed from the garment after the garment has been
folded, comprising:
a main body portion shaped and dimensioned to conform to
a desired folded dimension of a garment to be folded, said
main body portion having a flat, rectangular shape;
said main body portion being fabricated of a
substantially rigid material;
means for supporting said apparatus without said garment
when said removable garment folding apparatus is not in use,
said supporting means extending from an upper end of said main
body portion;
said main body portion comprising a pair of side fold-
guiding edge portions, a bottom fold-guiding edge portion, and
a centering mark;
said side fold-guiding edge portions being defined by
opposite side edges of said main body portion which are smooth
and continuous along their entire lengths and which are
parallel to one another;
said smooth, parallel side fold-guiding edge portions
being freely slidable relative to garment portions folded
thereover to permit free sliding disengagement and complete
removal of said apparatus from the garment folded thereon;
said main body portion being adapted to be centered
relative to said garment to be folded by aligning said
centering mark with the center of the collar of said garment
to be folded;
said main body portion being adapted to have said garment
folded only over said smooth, parallel side fold-guiding
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
While in the Answer this rejection is applied to claims2
20-25, it appears that this was in error, for, apparently due
to an error in claim numbering, a claim 22 never was made of
(continued...)
3
portions and said bottom fold-guiding edge portion; and
said apparatus being completely removed from said garment
after folding operations are complete by upwardly pulling said
apparatus free from the folded garment.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Bachmann 1,252,461 Jan. 1,
1918
Datlow 4,944,417 Jul. 31,
1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 19 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Bachmann.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 20, 21, 23-25 and 27-32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bachmann in view of Datlow.2
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
(...continued)2
record (see Paper No. 13 and the Brief).
4
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 14 and in the
Examiner’s Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief on Appeal.
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art3
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub
nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
5
OPINION
Independent claims 1, 19 and 26 stand rejected as being
anticipated by Bachmann. These claims are directed to a3
garment folding apparatus which is completely removed from the
garment after folding. This is not the case with the Bachmann
device, which is disclosed as a coat hanger comprising a panel
12 that would appear to be intended to remain installed in the
garment. While Bachmann makes no mention of folding a
garment, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that at least the lower portion of the
garment is intended to be folded up along the bottom edge of
panel 12 before the panel is placed in box 7.
The cited claims require that the device have a main body
portion “having a flat, rectangular shape.” The overall shape
of Bachmann hanger 12 is not rectangular, but the examiner has
reasoned that this limitation can be read on the lower portion
of the Bachmann hanger, with the upper boundary being a line
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
6
between the points of intersection of the curved upper edges
15 and the respective side edges. Such an interpretation
gives rise to a problem, however, with regard to the claimed
“centering mark,” which provides a reference point for
centering the garment to be folded on the device. As is
explained later in the claim, the centering mark is required
to be located on the rectangular main body portion.
Therefore, even considering, arguendo, the center staple 18
shown in the Bachmann hanger to be a “centering mark,” as did
the examiner, it would not be located in the position required
by the claim language, that is, in the rectangular body
portion. Moreover, centering actually is accomplished in the
Bachmann device by hanging the garment over the curved top
edges with its neck portion spanning handle 13, which clearly
establishes that the noted center staple 18 is not a
“centering point,” from the standpoint of functional
relationship to hanger 12, but merely a fastener that happens
to be shown in the drawings as being located on the centerline
of the hanger. If, as an alternative, one were to label the
handle as the “centering point,” the “main body portion” could
not be of the required rectangular shape, for it also would
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
7
have to encompass the curved upper portion of the hanger,
where the handle is located.
Thus, the subject matter discussed above is not found in
Bachmann, and the reference therefore is not anticipatory of
claims 1, 19 and 26 on this basis.
Claim 26 has another distinguishing feature, in that it
requires that the side edge portions be parallel to each
other, and that there be an upper edge portion which is
perpendicular to the side edge portions. This clearly is not
present in Bachmann. For the reasons set forth above, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 19 and 26.
All of the dependent claims stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Bachmann in view of Datlow, which discloses
a separator for hanging in a closet between stored garments.
Although not so stated in the rejection in Paper No. 14, it
would appear that Datlow is cited by the examiner for its
disclosure of utilizing materials other than those specified
in Bachmann, from which the examiner has concluded that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
utilize the various materials specified in the claims. We
have discussed the shortcomings of Bachmann above with regard
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when4
the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example, In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
8
to the independent claims, and they are not alleviated by
considering the teachings of Datlow. This being the case, it
is our view that the combined teachings of the two references
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with4
regard to any of the claims, and therefore we will not sustain
the Section 103 rejection.
In view of the fact that we have not sustained the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is unnecessary for us to
consider the appellant’s evidence of non-obviousness.
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
9
SUMMARY
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRUCE H. STONER, Jr., Chief )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2229
Application No. 08/094,748
10
Weiner, Carrier & Burt
Maxim Building
42400 Grand River Avenue, Suite 207
Novi, MI 48375