Ex Parte Taguchi et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201914647720 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/647,720 05/27/2015 7055 7590 06/03/2019 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kazunori Taguchi 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. P47257 1098 EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte KAZUNORI TAGUCHI, KENGO HATANO, ATSUHIRO HATTORI, and KAZUHARU HASE Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, and 6-9, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is directed to a tufted carpet for automobiles ( claim 1 ). The tufted carpet is made with a border between a high basis weight part and a low basis weight part that makes it difficult to visually recognize and enables reduction in weight while enhancing design. (Spec. ,-J 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative of the issues on appeal: 1. A tufted carpet for automobiles formed by implanting pile yams into a base fabric, comprising: a high basis weight part having the pile yams implanted at a high basis weight; a low basis weight part having the pile yams implanted at a low basis weight lower than the high basis weight; and a middle basis weight part provided between the high basis weight part and the low basis weight part and having the pile yams implanted at a basis weight between those of the high basis weight part and the low basis weight part, wherein the basis weight of the middle basis weight part becomes smaller stepwise from the side adjacent to the high basis weight part toward the side adjacent to the low basis weight part, the middle basis weight part including a first middle basis weight part having a basis weight smaller stepwise than the high basis weight part, and a second middle basis weight part having 1 The Appeal Brief on page 3 indicates that "Toyota Boshoku Kabushiki Kaisha" and "Haestora Spinning Co. Ltd." are the assignee of record. 2 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 a basis weight smaller stepwise than the first middle basis weight part, the first middle basis weight part provided adjacent to the high basis weight part and having the pile yams implanted in a predetermined first stitch number; and the second middle basis weight part provided adjacent to the low basis weight part and having the pile yams implanted in a predetermined second stitch number smaller than the predetermined first stitch number, and the first middle basis weight part has two or more stitches and the second middle basis weight part has two or more stitches. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fujii (JP 20110078131; Mar. 31, 2011) in view of Oakey (US 2013/0298491 Al; Nov. 14, 2013). 2. Claims 1, 4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hase (US 2012/0024210 Al; Feb. 2, 2012) in view of Oakey. 3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fujii in view of Oakey and Hase. 4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fujii in view of Oakey and Woosley (US 5,605,108; Feb. 25, 1997). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Rejections (1) and (3) With respect to claim 1, the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Fujii and Oakey are located on pages 3 to 5 of the Answer. Appellants argue that neither Fujii nor Oakey teaches a middle basis weight region composed of a first and second middle basis weight parts having the basis weights and arranged relative to the high basis weight region and the low basis weight region as stated in claim 1 (App. Br. 9). 3 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 Appellants contend that Fujii and Oakey fail to teach and thus would not have rendered obvious the first and second middle basis weight parts having two or more stitches (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Oakey' s teaching that the rug may have portions with different color, pile height, pile texture, or "other characteristics" does not teach that the basis weight is different in parts of the rug (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend that the "other characteristics" of the rug is a broad disclosure in Oakey that does not include basis weight as a variable or including a variation in basis weight in two steps (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that Oakey's teachings fail to cure the deficiencies of Fujii and therefore would not have rendered obvious the subject matter of claim 1 absent hindsight (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants' arguments do not convince us of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Rather, the Examiner does not rely solely on Oakey's teaching that "other characteristics" of the carpet may be varied. Rather, the Examiner finds that Oakey teaches that the transition in the carpet between different characteristics maybe "fuzzy" or "crisp." (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds and Appellants do not specifically address that the fuzzy transition amounts to a transition comprising multiple steps with a change in basis weight occurring over two steps or transitions (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that the number of stitches that forms the transition step between basis weight regions would have been with the skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan to optimize (Ans. 5). Appellants do not contest this finding of the Examiner (App. Br. generally). On page 11 of the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that Oakey does not disclose that a fuzzy transition includes multiple steps. The Examiner's rejection relies on 4 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 the fuzzy versus crisp transition in the Final Action (See e.g., Final Act. 4- 5). There is no reason why this argument could not have been raised in the principal Brief. Raising such a new argument in the Reply Brief is not permitted under our rules and deprives the Board of the Examiner's response to such an argument. See 37 CPR§ 41.4l(b)(2). We will not consider such an untimely argument. Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's stated rejection. Regarding claims 4, and 7 to 9, Appellants merely state that the Examiner's rejection is based on impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 11-14). Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's specific findings and conclusions with regard to Fujii and Oakey and the subject matter of claims 4 and 7-9 (Ans. 5-6). Specifically, the Examiner finds, for example, with regard to claim 4 that the number of stitches would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to optimize (Ans. 5). The Examiner rejects claim 6 over the combined teachings of Fujii, Oakey and Hase (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner finds that Fujii and Oakey fail to teach the claimed basis weight ranges for the high basis weight, low basis weight and middle basis weight regions of the carpet (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that Hase teaches an automotive carpet that includes a region of high basis weight ranging from 280 to 700 g/m2 and a low basis weight carpet portion having a basis weight from 200 to 500 g/m2 (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that Hase, like Fujii and Oakey, teaches a middle basis weight region, and the basis weight for the middle region is between the high and low regions' basis weights (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Fujii, Oakey, and Hase would have suggested an automotive carpet having the basis weights as recited in claim 6 (Ans. 11 ). 5 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 Appellants argue that the art fails to teach the subject matter of claim 6 and there is no reason, absent impermissible hindsight, for the Examiner's modification (App. Br. 15-16). Appellants' generic arguments fail to address and show reversible error in the Examiner's specific findings and conclusions in the rejection. On this record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's findings and conclusions that support the obviousness rejection. Rejections (2) and ( 4) The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Hase and Oakey are located on pages 6 to 9 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Hase teaches the subject matter of claim 1, but does not teach a middle basis weight region composed of a first and second middle basis weight part having the basis weights stated in claim 1 and arranged relative to the high basis weight region and the low basis weight region, with the first and second middle basis weight parts having two or more stitches (Ans. 6-7). As with rejection (1 ), the Examiner finds that Oakey teaches varying different parameters of the carpet such as color, pile height, pile texture, or "other characteristics" (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that Oakey teaches a fuzzy or crisp transition between different portions of the carpet (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that a fuzzy transition would include multiple changes in basis weight and a crisp change would include a single step change (Ans. 8). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use multiple step changes in basis weight in a middle region in Hase to provide a fuzzy or 6 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 gradual change in the rug's appearance (Ans. 8). The Examiner also determines that the number of stitches to use in the multiple step changes would have been optimizable and within the level of the ordinarily skilled artisan (Ans. 8). Appellants argue that Oakey' s teaching that other characteristics of the carpet may be varied does not teach varying the basis weight of a middle region in multiple steps (App. Br. 20). Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner's rejection is based upon Hase teaching a middle basis weight portion between a high basis weight rug portion and a low basis weight rug portion (Ans. 6-7). The Examiner relies on Oakey to teach that the transition between two regions may be fuzzy (Ans. 8). Based on this disclosure, the Examiner finds that Oakey would have suggested using multiple steps to form a middle zone (Ans. 8). The Examiner also finds that the number of stitches would have been readily optimizable based on the level of skill in the art (Ans. 8). Appellants' argument does not show reversible error with the Examiner's obviousness rejection. On page 11 of the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that Oakey does not disclose that a fuzzy transition includes multiple steps. The Examiner's rejection relies on the fuzzy versus crisp transition in the Final Action (See e.g., Final Act. 4-5). There is no reason why this argument could not have been raised in the principal Brief. Raising such a new argument in the Reply Brief is not permitted under our rules and deprives the Board of the Examiner's response to such an argument. See 3 7 CPR § 41.41 (b )(2). We will not consider such an untimely argument. Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's stated rejection. 7 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 Regarding claims 4, and 6 to 9, Appellants merely state that the Examiner's rejection is based on impermissible hindsight and the references do not teach the subject matter of the claims (App. Br. 21-25). Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's specific findings and conclusions with regard to Hase and Oakey and the subject matter of claims 4 and 6-9 (Ans. 8-10). Specifically, the Examiner finds, for example, with regard to claim 4 that the number of stitches would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to optimize (Ans. 8-9). Appellants' argument against claim 4 amounts to a mere assertion that the subject matter is not taught. No analysis has been proffered by the Appellants regarding whether the number of stitches is within the level of skill in the art as stated in the Examiner's rejection (Ans. 8). Appellants' argument does not establish reversible error with the Examiner's rejection. Regarding claim 7, the Examiner rejects the subject matter of the claim over Fujii in view of Oakey and Woosley (Ans. 11-12). The Examiner finds that the placement of the high basis weight rug at the front of an automobile and the low basis weight at the rear of an automobile would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Fujii, Oakey and Woosley. The Examiner finds that Woosley teaches such a positioning of an automotive rug (Ans. 11 ). Appellants argue that the Woosley does not teach the alleged deficiencies with the combination of Hase and Oakey and there is no reason to make the modification proposed by the Examiner (App. Br. 26). Appellants' generic arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error with the Examiner's specific rejection stated on pages 11 to 12 of the Answer. The 8 Appeal2018-005359 Application 14/647,720 Examiner provides specific findings that have not be particularly refuted by Appellants. On this record, we affirm the Examiner's rejections (2) and (4). DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation