Ex Parte Taylor-Phillips

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2018

13849280 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/849,280 03/22/2013
40334 7590
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive
Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
05/22/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
LaQuita Taylor-Phillips
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.
2017-000393 1039
EXAMINER
COLLADO, CYNTHIA FRANCISCA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2018 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte LAQUITA TAYLOR-PHILLIPS
Appeal2017-008106
Application 13/849,280
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-008106
Application 13/849,280
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a garment holder and hamper traveler.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A traveler comprising:
a plurality of front two-in-one pockets, each of the front
two-in-one pockets including a water repellent hamper pocket
predominately inside of a front pocket, wherein the front pocket
includes a flap that provides access to both the front pocket and
the water repellent hamper pocket within the front pocket such
that when the flap is closed, the water repellent hamper pocket
is wholly contained inside the front pocket and is hidden from
view, and wherein the water repellent hamper pockets and the
front pockets are sized to hold approximately an equivalent
amount of items;
a plurality of hanging straps extending from a top portion
of the traveler, each hanging strap including a fixed end and a
detached end, wherein each hanging strap is sized to wrap the
detachable end around a horizontal bar;
a first plurality of side fasteners extending from a left
side portion of the traveler;
a second plurality of side fasteners extending from a right
side portion of the traveler, each side fastener including a fixed
end and a detachable end, wherein the traveler is foldable
between an enlarged state and a reduced state, and wherein the
traveler is to be maintained in the reduced state if the first
plurality of side fasteners are coupled to the second plurality of
side fasteners; and
a plurality of back two-in-one pockets, each of the back
two-in-one pockets including a water repellent hamper pocket
inside of a back pocket, wherein at least one of the back two-in-
2
Appeal2017-008106
Application 13/849,280
one pockets has a width that is approximately equal to a width
of the traveler.
Dent
Hamilton
Young
Dancyger
REFERENCES
us 4,765,472
us 4,796,790
us 4,960,204
US D354,596
REJECTIONS
Aug.23, 1988
Jan. 10, 1989
Oct. 2, 1990
Jan. 17, 1995
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dancyger, Hamilton, and Young.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Dancyger, Hamilton, Young, and Dent.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 7-19-Unpatentable over Dancyger, Hamilton, and Young
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite a traveler having a plurality of front
and rear two-in-one pockets, each two-in-one pocket including "a hamper
pocket predominately inside of a front pocket." Br. 21-22 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Figures 2 and 4 of Dancyger depict a traveler with
the claimed two-in-one pockets. Final Act. 3, 5; see Dancyger Figs. 2, 4.
Appellant disputes this finding. Br. 12-16. Appellant asserts that "[t]here
simply is nothing in Dancyger that actually teaches or shows that the lower
edge of the upper pocket is inside the lower pocket, let alone that the upper
pocket is 'predominately' inside the lower pocket." Id. at 14. The
Examiner responds that "[i]f you look at the top periphery of [Dancyger's]
pocket from a top view, the pocket is 'predominately' inside the front of the
pocket." Ans. 7.
3
Appeal2017-008106
Application 13/849,280
We are not persuaded that Dancyger teaches two-in-one pockets
having a hamper pocket predominately inside a front pocket. First, the
upper pockets illustrated in Dancyger Figures 2 and 4 appear to be partially
obscured by the lower pockets; thus, it is not possible to tell how far, if at all,
the upper pockets extend inside of the lower pockets. Second, we disagree
with the Examiner that the upper pockets are predominately inside the lower
pockets "[i]f you look at the top periphery of the pocket from a top view."
Id. Dancyger's Figure 6, which is a top plan view of Dancyger's product,
does not show the upper pocket's predominately inside the lower pockets.
Moreover, even if it did, we are not persuaded that the appearance of the
upper and lower pockets from a top plan view is particularly helpful, given
that such a view obscures the relevant height and width dimensions of the
pockets. Because we are not persuaded that Dancyger teaches this
limitation, we do not sustain the rejection.
Claims 6 and 20---Unpatentable over Dancyger, Hamilton, Young, and Dent
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 20 relies on the erroneous
finding that Dancyger teaches two-in-one pockets having hamper pockets
predominately inside front pockets. Final Act. 6. The Examiner does not
rely on Hamilton, Young, or Dent to cure this deficiency. Id. Accordingly,
for the reasons stated above, we decline to sustain this rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4