Ex Parte Weiser

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 23, 2011

11297022 (B.P.A.I. May. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/297,022 12/08/2005 Sidney M. Weiser 05485.105057 1079
24628 7590 05/23/2011
Husch Blackwell LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
COLE, ELIZABETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SIDNEY M. WEISER
____________

Appeal 2009-013314
Application 11/297,022
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013314
Application 11/297,022

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s invention relates to a turf reinforcement mat comprising
two sets of tri-lobal filament yarns. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A turf reinforcement mat, comprising;

two sets of tri-lobal filament yarns interwoven in
substantially perpendicular direction to each other, each of the
tri-lobal filament yarns having heat shrinkage characteristics
such that, upon heating, the turf reinforcement mat forms a
three-dimensional, cuspated profile,

wherein respective ones of the tri-lobal filament yarns
have a denier of between about 1200 and about 2000 and a
cross-sectional geometry consisting essentially of:

a substantially circular, substantially uniform core region,

three substantially convex and smoothly curved
elongated lobes substantially equally spaced about a
circumference of the core region, each elongated lobe
consisting of a single, substantially symmetrical half-ellipse
shaped convex member disposed along a portion of the
circumference of the core region, a shortest distance between a
geometrical apex of the convex member and the portion of the
circumference of the core region being substantially equal to a
longest width of the convex member along a geometrical axis
perpendicular to a geometrical axis defined by the shortest
distance between the apex and the portion of the circumference
of the core region, and

three substantially concave and smoothly curved
channels separating the elongated lobes, a portion of each
smoothly curved channel comprising a plurality of points along
the circumference of the core region, each smoothly curved
Appeal 2009-013314
Application 11/297,022

3
channel being configured to capture sediment to prevent
erosion.

Appellant requests review of the following rejection from the
Examiner’s final office action:

Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Theisen (US Patent 5,616,399,
issued April 1, 1997) and Martin (US Patent 5,972,463, issued October 26,
1999).

OPINION1
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Martin describes a multi-lobal fiber that has the cross-
sectional geometry required by the subject matter of independent claims 1
and 8?
We answer this question in the affirmative for the reasons set forth by
Appellant and the following.
The Examiner found that Martin’s Figure 14 illustrates a multi-lobal
filament that has the cross-sectional geometry required by the subject matter
of independent claims 1 and 8. (Ans. 3).
Appellant argues and we agree that neither Theisen nor Martin alone
or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest two sets of tri-lobal interwoven
filament yarns as required by independent claims 1 and 8. (App. Br. 11).
More specifically, Appellant argues that Martin does not disclose, teach, or
suggest a multi-lobal fiber that has the cross-sectional geometry defined by

1 We will limit our discussion to independent claims 1 and 8.
Appeal 2009-013314
Application 11/297,022

4
the claimed invention. Appellant argues that Martin defines a multi-lobal
fiber that is not the same as the multi-lobal fiber of the claimed invention.
Further, Appellant contends that Martin’s multi-lobal filament illustrated in
Figure 14 depicts curved lobes separated by sharp, linear channels. (App.
Br. 13). Appellant compared a marked up version of Martin’s Figure 14 and
a marked up Figure 7 from the present Application to compare the cross-
sectional geometry. (App. Br. 13-15). Appellant asserted that the marked
up version of Martin’s Figure 14 and a marked up Figure 7 identify the core
region and the geometrical apex of the multi-lobal fiber. Appellant contends
that these drawings depict the core region as defined by the claimed
invention distinction in the geometrical apex from the claimed invention and
that of Martin’s Figure 14. (App. Br. 14-16).

The Examiner responded that the channels of Martin as shown in
Figure 14 do not have any sharp points as argued and Martin teaches that the
surfaces of the filaments are generally smooth and continuous. Citing col. 4,
lines 62-63. (Ans. 4). However, the Examiner has not adequately explained
where Martin teaches or suggests the core region having the claimed
circumference thus providing the cross-sectional geometry required by the
claimed invention.

For the foregoing reasons and those presented by Appellant, we
reverse the stated rejection.
Appeal 2009-013314
Application 11/297,022

5
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-18 under 35 USC § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Theisen and Martin is
reversed.

REVERSED

bar