Ex Parte Thompson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

12265612 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

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