FILSPEC INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2020003439 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
15/249,929 08/29/2016 SEBASTIEN COUTURE 56027443-1US 7307
20988 7590 12/16/2020
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP
1, PLACE VILLE MARIE
SUITE 2500
MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3B 1R1
CANADA
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, BAO-THIEU L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
NRFCUSPTOMAIL@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIEN COUTURE and DAVID BOULANGER
Appeal 2020-003439
Application 15/249,929
Technology Center 3700
Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Filspec, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003439
Application 15/249,929

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to composite yarn. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A composite yarn comprising:
a glass core having a linear weight ranging between 50 to
400 deniers and composing from 15 to 60% of a total linear
weight of the composite yarn; and
a sheath surrounding the glass core, the sheath
constituted at least of staple fibers of meta-aramid, the staple
fibers intermingled with the glass core, the sheath constituting a
remainder of the total linear weight of the composite yarn;
wherein the composite yarn has a yarn count between 10
tex and 80 tex.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fangeat US 5,141,542 Aug. 25, 1992
Geirhos US 6,109,016 Aug. 29, 2000
Kolmes US 6,381,940 B1 May 7, 2002
Lovasic US 2005/0032449 A1 Feb. 10, 2005
Patrick US 7,469,526 B2 Dec. 30, 2008
Tanaka US 7,489,528 B2 Feb. 10, 2009
Hardee US 8,074,436 B2 Dec. 13, 2011
Switzer US 2015/0329997 A1 Nov. 19, 2015
REJECTIONS2
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.

2 We do not reach the Examiner’s drawing objection. Objections to
drawings are reviewable, if at all, only by means of a timely petition under
37 C.F.R. § 1.113. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”)
Appeal 2020-003439
Application 15/249,929

3
Claims 1–4, 10, 12–15, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fangeat and Switzer.
Claims 5–7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fangeat, Switzer, and Lovasic.
Claims 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fangeat, Switzer, and Hardee.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fangeat, Switzer, and Patrick.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
Claim 21 recites “a glass core being a glass fiber filament.” In the
June 26, 2019 Response after Final (“Resp.”), Appellant amended claim 21
to recite that the sheath’s staple fibers are “intermingled to a surface of the
glass core,” rather than simply “intermingled with the glass core.” Resp. 4
(emphases added); see also Appeal Br. 13. The amendment was entered by
the Examiner. Adv. Act. 1.
The Examiner determines that it “is still not clear that how the sheath
[is] intermingled to a surface of the glass core.” Adv. Act. 2 (emphasis
added). The Examiner notes that there is no guidance provided by the
Specification or Drawings as to what is meant by “intermingled to a surface
of the glass core.” Id.
Appellant does not address the rejection as it relates to the amended
language noted above (i.e., “intermingled to a surface of the glass core”).

§ 1002.02(c); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077–78 (BPAI
2010) (refusing to hear an appeal from an examiner’s refusal to enter a
corrected drawing figure in response to a drawing objection).
Appeal 2020-003439
Application 15/249,929

4
Rather, Appellant simply alleges that one skilled in the art would understand
what it means to be “intermingled with the glass core.” See Appeal Br. 7–8;
Reply Br. 4–5.
Because Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection, we are
not apprised of error.
Obviousness
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 10, 12–15, 18, 20, and 21 as a group.
Appeal Br. 8–9. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–4, 10, 12–
15, 18, 20, and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not provide argument for dependent
claims 5–9, 11, 16, and 17.
The Examiner finds that Fangeat teaches the majority of the features
recited in claim 1, but “does not teach the sheath layer having staple fiber
and intermingled with the core.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that
Switzer teaches the recited “intermingling” and proposes modifying
Fangeat’s teachings accordingly. Id. at 4–5.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings related to Fangeat
or the rationale for the proposed modification. Appellant also does not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that Switzer teaches entangling its staple
fiber sheath with its core. Rather, the sole dispute raised by Appellant is
whether Switzer’s “entangling” corresponds to the recited “intermingling.”
Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appellant offers little in support for its contention, relying solely on
an inventor Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (hereinafter,
“Declaration”). That Declaration provides inventor testimony unsupported
by any other evidence. The issue before us is whether, under the broadest
Appeal 2020-003439
Application 15/249,929

5
reasonable interpretation, the recited “intermingling” is synonymous with
“entangling.” The record before us supports the Examiner’s determination
that one skilled in the art would understand “entangling” to be
“intermingling.”
Notably, the written description fails to provide any definition, or any
detail whatsoever, regarding what “intermingling” entails. See Spec ¶ 19
(explaining that “[t]he yarn integrity will also have to be monitored so that
the sheath 14 of staple fiber becomes intermingled with the glass core 12 to
avoid any undesirable slip of the sheath 14 over the glass core 12,” with no
further explanation of “intermingling”). As Appellant acknowledges, the
drawings provide no detail whatsoever regarding the recited “intermingling.”
See Appeal Br. 7 (“Due to the microscop[ic] nature of the intermingling of
fibers, the Applicant has opted not to show photographs, notably due to the
resolution issues.”).
The Examiner cites several United States Patent Publications (either
issues patents or published patent applications) that support the Examiner’s
understanding of the term “intermingled.” See Ans. 12–13 (“US Patent
6,109,016 states . . . customary entangling techniques, for example by
intermingling or commingling techniques,” “US 2015/0259831 states . . .
entangling . . . directing a fluid jet . . . to intermingle filaments and/or groups
of filaments,” and “US Patent 6,381,940 states . . . fiber strands . . . are
whipped about by the air jet and become intermingled or entangled.”).
Appellant does not acknowledge, let alone address in any persuasive
manner, this evidence provided by the Examiner. Moreover, the Examiner’s
evidence is consistent with Appellant’s Declaration regarding the process
that creates intermingling (or entangling). See Declaration ¶ 9
Appeal 2020-003439
Application 15/249,929

6
(“‘Intermingl[ing]’ . . . is a structural feature resulting from manufacturing
using air jet spinning”).
Based on the record before us, we are not apprised of Examiner error
in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21 112(b) Indefiniteness 21
1–4, 10, 12–
15, 18, 20,
21
103 Fangeat, Switzer 1–4, 10, 12–
15, 18, 20,
21

5–7, 16 103 Fangeat, Switzer,
Lovasic
5–7, 16
8, 9, 17 103 Fangeat, Switzer,
Hardee
8, 9, 17
11 103 Fangeat, Switzer,
Patrick
11
Overall
Outcome
1–18, 20, 21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED