Ex Parte Watley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2013

11465922 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE E. WATLEY
____________

Appeal 2011-002717
Application 11/465,922
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002717
Application 11/465,922

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce E. Watley (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) claims 1-4 as
anticipated by Beck (US 7,490,358 B1, issued Feb. 17, 2009) and under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Beck and Egnew (US
6,675,394 B2, issued Jan. 13, 2004). We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a protective article of clothing for
protecting the legs of a wearer from snake bites. Spec. 1, ll. 9-11 and fig. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A protective article of clothing adapted to prevent snake
fangs from biting into the leg of a wearer, comprising:
a leg portion having a plurality of elongated inserts made
of material impervious to snake bites;
a fabric layer having a plurality of elongated pockets
therein having a first edge, a second edge, a front portion, and a
back portion that receive the plurality of elongated inserts; and
a longitudinal seam attached to the second edge of the
front portion of a first pocket and attached to the back portion
adjacent the first edge of a second pocket such that the second
edge of the first pocket overlaps the first edge of the second
pocket.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-002717
Application 11/465,922

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires “a longitudinal seam attached to the
second edge of the front portion of a first pocket and attached to the back
portion adjacent the first edge of a second pocket.” App. Br., Claims App’x.
The Examiner found that “a seam connects a front portion of a first
pocket [104] to a back portion of a second pocket [108] via webbing (112,
120) in an overlapping relation.” Ans. 3; see also, Beck, figs. 1 and 4.
According to the Examiner “webbing (112, 120) defines a longitudinal
seam.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that, “webbing and seam are distinct and
independent elements.” Reply Br. 5. According to Appellant, “[a] seam has
an ordinary and customary meaning of ‘the line formed by the sewing
together of two pieces.’” App. Br. 4. Thus, according to Appellant,
although Beck teaches a seam between lower back armor 104, 108 and strap
120, Beck fails to teach a “seam,” as called for by independent claim 1. We
agree.
Appellant’s Specification does not expressly define the term “seam”
or otherwise indicate that it is used in a manner other than its ordinary and
customary meaning. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term
“seam” that is most consistent with the Specification and the understanding
of those of ordinary skill in the art is “1 a : the joining of two pieces (as of
cloth or leather) by sewing usually near the edge . . . 3a : a line, groove, or
ridge formed by the abutment of edges.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY (10th Ed. 1997).
Here, Appellant’s Specification describes seams 38 as located
adjacent a second side edge 26 in the front portion 28 of a first pocket 18
Appeal 2011-002717
Application 11/465,922

4
and adjacent a second edge 24 in the back portion 30 of a second pocket 18.
Spec. 3, ll. 33-36 and fig. 2. In contrast, although Beck’s strap 120 joins
armor parts 104, 108 in an overlapping relation, strap 120 does not join
armor parts 104, 108 near their respective edge to form a line, groove, or
ridge by the abutment of the edges. We thus agree with Appellant that Beck
fails to teach a “seam,” as called for by independent claim 1. See Reply Br.
5. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Beck.
With respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 6, the addition of Egnew
does not remedy the deficiencies of Beck as described supra. Accordingly,
we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beck and Egnew.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls