Ex Parte Silva

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13076256 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/076,256 03/30/2011
67559 7590 09/23/2016
Parsons Behle & Latimer
Attn: Docketing
800 W. Main Street, Suite 1300
Boise, ID 83702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Theresa G. Silva
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.
19979.00lUSOl 3252
EXAMINER
POON, PETER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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)
L11'-~ITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADE~'v1ARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte THERESA G. SILVA
Appeal2015-000765
Application 13/076,256
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and MARK A. GEIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision1 rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated November 21, 2013 ("Final
Act.").
Appeal2015-000765
Application 13/076,256
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 5 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. An adjustable dog leash comprising:
an adjustment portion connected to a loop forming junction;
an adjustment mechanism positioned on the adjustment portion,
whereby the adjustment portion is adjustable in length in order to
position the loop forming junction at a dog's hind legs;
a looping portion connected at one end to the loop forming
junction, and having a free end; and
wherein the free end is configured to be passable through the
loop forming junction to create a loop in the dog leash that passes
substantially around the body at the hind legs of the dog upon which
the leash is applied.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Schmid (US 5,791,295; iss. Aug. 11, 1998).
IL Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmid and Sporn (US 5,660, 146; iss. Aug. 26, 1997).
III. Claims 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmid.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, that the "left
side" of Schmid's element 70 corresponds to the claimed adjustment portion,
Schmid' s ring 16 corresponds to the claimed loop forming junction, and Schmid' s
element 18 corresponds to the claimed looping portion, which is connected at one
end to the loop forming junction (Schmid' s ring 16). Final Act. 2 (citing Schmid,
2
Appeal2015-000765
Application 13/076,256
Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner further finds that Schmid's element 70 is adjustable so
that Schmid's "member 31 can be made larger in diameter to loop at the dog's hind
legs." Id. (citing Schmid 4:44--56, Fig. 1). The Examiner determines that
Schmid's adjustment portion "perform[s] the intended function by
loosening/sliding member 70 on leash 10 so that member 31 can be made larger in
diameter to slide to the dog's hind legs." Id. 2-3. More specifically, the Examiner
determines that "free end ( 18 or 14) of Schmid' s leash can perform this intended
function by making [the] portion [of the leash at 10] shorter and sliding portion 31
to the hind legs." Ans. 4.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Schmid does not disclose "the claimed
position of the loop forming junction 'at the hind legs,"' because "the device in
Schmid is intended to cinch the animal at 'the armpits' (i.e., forelegs) and,
therefore, does not need to be, and in fact is not, positionable 'at the hind legs' as
claimed." Appeal Br. 7 (citing Schmid 2: 13-18, 31-33, 3:45-50). We agree.
Schmid does not support the Examiner's finding that free end 14 of Schmid' s leash
10 is configured to be passable through ring 16 to create a loop that passes
substantially around the body at the hind legs of the dog, as required by claim 1.
Instead, as argued by Appellant, Schmid discloses that free end 14 must also pass
through second ring 21, which is described and depicted as being connected to the
collar, such that "band 10 is drawn through the first ring means 16, tightening the
loop 32, and through the eye 21 of second ring means 20, drawing the loop 32
toward the collar 30 and into the armpits of the animal." Schmid 3:28-32
(emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and claim 2 depending therefrom.
3
Appeal2015-000765
Application 13/076,256
Independent claim 5 similarly requires the free end of the leash to be
"configured to be looped around a portion of a quadruped animal and passed
through [a] junction to form an adjustable size loop around the portion of the
quadruped animal at the quadruped's hind legs." App. Br. 10, Claims App.
Similar to claim 1 supra, the Examiner relies on Schmid for disclosing this
limitation. For the reasons stated supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 5 and claims 6, 7, and 9 depending therefrom.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner's reliance on Sporn and further reliance on Schmid does not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's finding with respect to Schmid and
independent claims 1 and 5, as stated supra. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 8, and 10-12, which depend from claims 1 and 5.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
4