Ex Parte ThompsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201712265612 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/265,612 11/05/2008 Jesse B. Thompson JLIS-1-1001 2495 25315 7590 09/28/2017 LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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): patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESSE B. THOMPSON Appeal 2017-001902 Application 12/265,6121 Technology Center 1700 Before RAE LYNN P. GUEST, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 and 18—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schellenberger2 in view of Kirk,3 alone or, with respect to 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Jelis Incorporated. Appellant’s Appeal Brief 2, filed June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “App. Br.”). 2 DE 102 57 778 Al, published June 24, 2004, and naming Steffen Schellenberger as the sole inventor. Each reference to “Schellenberger” is to an English-language machine translation of the German patent made of record when first cited by the Examiner on March 10, 2014. 3 U.S. Patent 5,724,707, issued March 10, 1998, to John Kirk et al. (“Kirk”). Appeal 2017-001902 Application 12/265,612 claim 14, further in view of Carlson.4 See Examiner’s Final Office Action 2—3, 5, dated April 15, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Examiner’s Answer 2, 4 dated September 22, 2016 (“Ans.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention is directed to methods and systems for modularly attaching items for a person to carry. Specification (“Spec.”) 3. Appellant’s invention is an improvement of prior art modular attachment systems in that it allows the attachment of accessories in any orientation and location in relation to the body, including vertical, horizontal, or any irregular orientation. Spec. 19. Figure 11A of the Specification is reproduced below. 4 U.S. Patent 7,200,871 Bl, issued April 10, 2007, to Richard A. Carlson (“Carlson”). 2 Appeal 2017-001902 Application 12/265,612 Figure 11A depicts an isometric view of an interwoven material matrix of the present invention with various accessories attached thereto in different orientations. Spec. 121. Figure 11A shows interwoven material matrix 110 of the present invention having attached thereto accessories (straps 500 and accessory 510) in different orientations. Spec. 121. In Figure 11A, interwoven material matrix 110 of the present invention having attached thereto straps 500 and an accessory 510 attached via threading straps 520 through loops 530 of the interwoven material matrix 110 and through straps 540 attached to the rear of the modular attachment accessory 510. 3 Appeal 2017-001902 Application 12/265,612 Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with emphasis added to a relevant portion of the claim): 1. A modular attachment system for a garment to be worn by a person, the system comprising: a garment to be worn by a person, the garment having a first side and a second side, the garment being flexible; an interwoven matrix of strips secured to at least one of the first side and the second side of the garment, the strips forming a plurality of loops, the matrix including a first set of strips extending in a first direction and a second set of strips extending in a second direction transverse to the first direction, the second set of strips interwoven with the first set of strips, wherein the first set of strips form first loop openings where portions of the first set of strips pass over the second set of strips, and wherein the second set of strips form second loop openings where portions of the second set of strips pass over the first set of strips to form a plurality of loops, whereby the first loop openings and the second loop openings extend in a direction transverse to one another, whereby the first loop openings are at least the same width as the second loop openings; wherein each of the strips of the first set of strips and the second of set of strips is made of a woven fabric material, the fabric being woven from at least one material that does not substantially stretch; and one or more modular attachment accessories, each of which comprises a coupling mechanism that threads through at least one of the plurality of loops of the matrix and is configured and arranged to form a closed loop around the at least one loop of the matrix to attach the modular attachment accessory to the at least one of the plurality of loops of the interwoven material matrix, wherein the matrix is attached to a flexible backing material or other flexible structure at a perimeter area of the matrix, whereby the first set of strips and second set of strips are substantially void or completely void of attachment to the flexible backing material or other flexible 4 Appeal 2017-001902 Application 12/265,612 structure along lengths of said sets of strips such that the interwoven strips provide stability to the attached one or more modular attachment accessories. App. Br. 11, Claim App’x. With respect to the first rejection, Appellant presents arguments as to all the rejected claims as a group (Id. at 8—9), for which we select independent claim 1 as representative. Appellant does not advance any additional arguments for the separate rejection of claim 14. Instead, Appellant asserts that claim 14 is patentable for the same reasons as the independent claims. App. Br. 9. Thus, the issues presented for both rejections are the same. II. DISCUSSION Appellant notes that Schellenberger does not teach the interlocking matrix of the present invention, including woven fabric material of the present invention that is “woven from at least one material that does not substantially stretch,” as claim 1 requires. Id. at 8. According to Appellant, such a material is necessary to adequately secure the accessory attachments without bouncing or moving excessively as the wearer moves. Id. The Examiner acknowledges the lack of such a teaching in Schellenberger and applies Kirk, which teaches nylon (i.e., a material that does not substantially stretch) strips as a means for forming attachment structures. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that the substitution would have produced the predictable result of an attachment structure wherein the band had improved strength. Ans. 5. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the skilled artisan would not have substituted the flexible bands of Schellenberger with the nylon band taught by Kirk, because doing so would destroy the essential function of 5 Appeal 2017-001902 Application 12/265,612 Schellenberger, namely, securing objects by compressing the stretchable bands. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellant, particularly given that the Examiner does not provide any substantive response to this argument on the record. See generally Ans. We note that Schellenberger does not teach securing accessories to the interwoven stretchable matrix by any means other than the stretchable nature of the stretchable bands, such as by additional clips or straps. Thus, we agree with Appellant that Schellenberger, formed with non-stretchable bands would not function as the product was intended. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections that are based on the combination of Schellenberger and Kirk, including the separate rejection of claim 14, which relies on the same teachings of Schellenberger and Kirk. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. III. CONCLUSION On the record before us and for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain any of the rejections maintained by the Examiner. IV. ORDER We reverse the following Examiner’s rejections: claims 1—13, 15, 16, and 18—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schellenberger in view of Kirk and claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schellenberger in view of Kirk and Carlson. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation