Hung-Wang Chou

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2022

2021005086 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022)

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. 15/964,295 04/27/2018 Hung-Wang Chou P06450-CUW-0001-US 1035 69638 7590 02/23/2022 Mayer & Williams, P.C. 55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 EXAMINER SPATZ, ABBY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2022 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com docket@mwpatentlaw.com info@THELAWFIRM.CC PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUNG-WANG CHOU Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 Technology Center 3700 Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, 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 2-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-17. See generally Appeal Br. 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 the inventor, Hung-Wang Chou. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Pants.” Spec. 1. Claim 2 is the sole independent claim. See Resp. to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Br. 2-4 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claim 2, below: 2. Pants comprising: a main body including a first piece and a second piece, with the first piece and the second piece being sewn together with each other to constitute a waist-wearing portion, two leg-wearing portions and a central portion, with the central portion located between the two leg-wearing portions, wherein a portion of the first piece within the central portion has a first connecting region and a second connecting region, with the first connecting region located at an inner upper edge of the first piece at the waist- wearing portion, with a portion of the second piece within the central portion having a third connecting region located at an inner upper edge of the second piece at the waist-wearing portion, with the second connecting region located at a seam of the first piece and the second piece extending between the two leg-wearing portions, wherein the first piece includes a single continuous sheet having a first length between the first connecting region and the second connecting region, wherein the second piece includes a single continuous sheet having a second length between the second and third connecting regions, wherein the first length is greater than the second length, wherein a central plane extends between the first piece and the second piece and divides the waist-wearing portion into halves, with the second connecting region spaced from the central plane, and wherein the central plane is a virtual plane; and an auxiliary supportive-crotch including a first connecting end and a second connecting end, with the first connecting end connected to the inner upper edge of the first piece and intermediate and spaced from the two leg-wearing portions and to the first connecting region of the central portion, and with the second connecting end being connected to the second connecting region of the central portion, wherein the auxiliary supportive- crotch has a third length extending between the first and second Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 3 connecting ends, and wherein the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch, wherein an accommodating space, having a size based upon a difference between the first length of the first piece and the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch, is formed between the auxiliary supportive-crotch and the portion of the first piece within the central portion, and wherein a ratio of the first length to the third length is between 1.2 and 1.6. Claims App. 2. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ide US 2,035,604 Mar. 31, 1936 Russell US 2,078,184 Apr. 20, 1937 Wong US 7,216,371 B2 May 15, 2007 Kitsch US 2008/0178369 A1 July 31, 2008 Perolari US 2010/0058517 A1 Mar. 11, 2010 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 2-6, 9, 11-13, 15-17 112(b) Indefiniteness 2-6, 9, 11 103 Kitsch, Ide 12, 13, 15, 16 103 Kitsch, Ide, Wong 17 103 Kitsch, Perolari 2-6 103 Russell, Ide, Kitsch See Final Act. 4-26. Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 4 ANALYSIS I. Indefinite Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 2-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 4. Appellant does not contest the rejection. See generally Appeal Br.; see also Ans. 11 (“a 112(b) rejection was made in the final rejection . . . however the appellant did not provide any arguments against this rejection.”). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 2-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 as indefinite. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). II. Kitsch and Ide (Claims 2-6, 9, and 11) The Examiner rejects claims 2-6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsch in view of Ide. Final Act. 4. Appellant presents arguments contesting the rejection of independent claim 2, but does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection of dependent claims 3-6, 9, and 11. See Appeal Br. 6-12. We treat claim 2 as the representative claim, with claims 3-6, 9, and 11 standing or falling with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). a. Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting independent claim 2, the Examiner finds that Kitsch teaches several of the claimed features, citing in part Kitsch’s Figures 1 and 7. See Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner submitted annotated versions of Kitsch’s Figures 1 and 7 by adding “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D” to associate Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 5 Kitsch’s structure to certain features of the claims. See id. at 5, 6, 12, 13. We reproduce these annotated figures, below: Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 6 Figure 1 (top) is a “front elevation view [of] a pair of the briefs according to one embodiment of [Kitsch’s] invention being worn by a male user.” Kitsch ¶ 11. Figure 7 (bottom) is a sectional view of the right-side of the briefs shown in Figure 1. See id. ¶¶ 2, 17, 18. The Examiner finds that Kitsch teaches most of the claimed structure, precisely detailing how the claimed features correspond to Kitsch’s Figures 1 and 7. See Final Act. 5-6. Notably, the Examiner finds Kitsch teaches, inter alia, “an auxiliary supportive-crotch (18’).” See id. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Kitsch does not specifically teach: (1) the first piece and the second piece being sewn together; (2) the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch such that a ratio of the first length to the third length is between 1.2 and 1.6; and (3) the accommodating space, having a size based upon a difference between the first length of the first piece and the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch. Final Act. 6. To address (1), the “sewn together” limitation, the Examiner reasons that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have joined the first piece and the second piece of Kitsch via stitching in view of Kitsch in order to provide flexible seaming thereby providing comfort to the wearer. Furthermore, sewing is a common connection technique known in the garment manufacturing industry. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 7 To address (3), the “accommodating space” based on differences in length, the Examiner relies on Ide’s teachings. Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Ide teaches pants having an “auxiliary supportive- crotch[] wherein a length of the first piece is greater than a length of the auxiliary supportive crotch to provide desired support.” Id. (citing Ide, col. 2, 1:53-55, col. 1, 2:1-6, Fig. 3). We reproduce Ide’s Figure 3, below: Figure 3 is a sectional view of a front view of Ide’s garment. See Ide, col. 2, 1:8-9. As disclosed by Ide, and “[a]s illustrated in Figure 3, the supporter is of somewhat less length between its points of attachment to the garment than the distance between those points along the garment itself.” Id. at col. 2, 1:53-2:1. Ide further discloses that “[a]s a consequence, the supporter lies inward from the inner surface of the garment and thus when the garment is worn, the supporter fits the body of the wearer snugly and provides the desired support.” Id. at col. 1, 2:2-6. Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 8 Based on this disclosure, the Examiner finds that Ide teaches an “accommodating space . . . having a size based upon a difference between the length of the first piece and the length of the auxiliary supportive- crotch.” Final Act. 7 (citing Ide, col. 2, 1:53-2:6). In combining Ide’s teachings with Kitsch, the Examiner reasons that [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the third length of the auxilliary [sic] supportive- crotch smaller than the first length of the first piece of the Kitsch combined reference (such that the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxilliary [sic] supportive- crotch) in view of Ide in order to provide increased support to the wearer. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Ide, col. 2, 1:53-55, 2:1-6). To address (2), the ratio “between 1.2 and 1.6” limitation, the Examiner reasons that [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the ratio of the first length to the third length between 1.2 and 1.6 in order to optimize for proportions of different sized/shaped wearers to provide a snug fit and desired support. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Final Act. 8 (citing MPEP § 2144.05 (ll)(A) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020)). b. Analysis In contesting the rejection of claim 2, Appellant recites large portions of claim 2 and contends, generally, that the prior art fails to teach the Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 9 claimed structure. See Appeal Br. 7-8. As explained in more detail below, Appellant’s arguments suffer from two main flaws. One, Appellant attacks the teachings of Kitsch and Ide individually, without appreciating the Examiner’s proposed modification in meeting the claimed limitations. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Two, Appellant attempts to distinguish the prior art from embodiments described in the Specification. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Appellant’s argument focuses on the following separate sub- arguments. “First, Appellant submits that Kitsch fails to disclose, at least, the ‘first piece’ OR the ‘auxiliary supportive-crotch’ of the pants defined by Claim 2.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding Kitsch’s “pouch compartment 18” as corresponding to the claimed “auxiliary supportive-crotch.” See id. at 9 (“Kitsch fails to disclose Applicant’s recited ‘auxiliary supportive-crotch’.”). Appellant explains that “Kitsch teaches that the pouch 18 (i.e., both the inner layer 18’AND the outer layer 18) is a single whole element that provides support.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s first argument is not persuasive. Even if Kitsch teaches one pouch 18 (with two layers of material (18’ and 18”) (see, e.g., Kitsch Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 10 Fig. 7)), Appellant fails to identify error in the Examiner’s finding that pouch 18 satisfies the claimed “auxiliary supportive-crotch.” Appellant provides a comparison of seemingly irrelevant details of Kitsch’s pants with the Specification in presenting its argument. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3 (“Kitsch teaches divergent tails joined along seam 18b’”); see also Appeal Br. 8 (“Kitsch recites . . . seam 18a is formed along the medial plane B (orthogonal to plane A containing where seams 20 run along front walls 26”)); see also Appeal Br. 9 (“Applicant’s specification . . . recites,’ “the pants 10 of the present embodiment have the feature . . . such that the auxiliary supportive-crotch 200 can provide stable covering, securing, and supporting effects.”) (emphasis omitted). We appreciate that there are likely differences between Kitsch’s pants and certain embodiments described in Appellant’s Specification. Nevertheless, these differences alone do not indicate Examiner error. During prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since the applicant has the power during prosecution to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Here, Appellant’s assertion that “the function of [Kitsch’s] inner liner 18’ is to provide the phallus 16 with ‘comfortable feeling’” (Appeal Br. 9), whereas the Specification “recites” “that the auxiliary supportive-crotch 200 can provide stable covering, securing, and supporting effects” is not indicative of Examiner error. Id. (underlining omitted); see Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. As explained correctly by the Examiner, “the auxiliary supportive crotch providing stable covering and securing and preventing male genitals from being easily discerned are not recited in the claims.” Ans. 4-5 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 11 In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues, for the first time, that “one of ordinary skill would have no reason to modify the teachings of Kitsch in the manner proposed because such a modification would render Kitsch unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” which, according to Appellant, is to “allow scrotum 14 and phallus 16 to rest naturally.” See Reply Br. 3. We do not find this alternative argument persuasive, either. We do not see how the proposed modifications, identified as (1)-(3) above (see supra § II.a), would somehow render Kitsch unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Again, Appellant cites large portions of irrelevant disclosure within Kitsch in support of this argument (see, e.g., Reply Br. 3-4), but fails to explain how, precisely, the Examiner’s modification would prevent Kitsch’s pants from allowing “scrotum 14 and phallus 16 to rest naturally” (see id.). Appellant further argues that the prior art “fail[s] to teach or suggest the recited claim limitation of ‘a ratio of the first length of the first piece to the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch is between 1.2 and 1.6.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant submits that Kitsch’s “inner liner 18’ and the outer layer 18” must have the same length and be contiguous to each other,” and that “the ratio of the length of the inner layer 8’ to the length of the outer layer 18” must be approximately 1.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant further explains that the “‘routine optimization’ would not teach or lead a person to the recited claim element of the ratio . . . since Kitsch’s teachings are to provide a genital pouch with inner and outer layers of material.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that the prior art does not teach the claimed ratio of “between 1.2 and 1.6” Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 12 (see Final Act. 6), but reasons that a skilled artisan would have modified the Kitsch/Ide combination to meet the ratio and satisfy the limitation “in order to optimize for proportions of different sized/shaped wearers to provide a snug fit and desired support” (id. at 8). Appellant’s argument that “‘routine optimization’ would not teach or lead a person to the recited claim element of the ratio” because “Kitsch’s teachings are to provide a genital pouch with inner and outer layers of material” (Appeal Br. 10) (emphasis omitted) is not persuasive of Examiner error. See Ans. 3-4 (explaining the same). Appellant’s argument is not supported by the record. Appellant also argues that “Kitsch describes how the ‘divergent tails’ of inner liner 18’ are ‘joined along seam 18b’ . . . [and that] Kitsch fails to teach or suggest . . . inner liner 18’ [that] has a second connecting end connected to a second connecting region to which the first piece and second piece are also connected.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As aptly explained by the Examiner, The examiner does not rely on 18b’ to teach this feature and 18b’ does not prevent Kitsch from teaching this feature. The second connecting region is defined as where 18d connects to 24, C, see annotated fig. . . . The examiner defines the second connecting end of the auxiliary supportive crotch as the end of 18’ connected to 24. One can see from the annotated fig. 7 . . . that 18’, the first piece (26, 18”), and the second piece (28) are all connected at C. One can also see the second connecting end (end of 18’ connected to 24) connected to the second connecting region in fig. 3, and fig. 8. Figs. 3 and 8 show the end of 18’ connected to 24 via seam 30a. Ans. 7; see also supra § II.a (Examiner’s annotated versions of Kitsch’s Figures 1 and 7). Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 13 Appellant also attacks Ide individually, arguing that “Ide’s ‘pair of strips 19 and 20’ do not describe a second connecting end connected to a second connecting region of a central portion . . . .” Appeal Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive, as the Examiner relies on Kitsch, not Ide, in satisfying the limitation. See Final Act. 6 (finding that Kitsch teaches “the second connecting end being connected to the second connecting region of the central portion” (citing Kitsch ¶ 30, Fig. 7)); see also Ans. 8-9 (explaining the same). “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 2, and of claims 3-6, 9, and 11, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). III. Kitsch, Ide, and Wong or Perolari (Claims 12, 13, and 15-17) Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejections of claims 12, 13, and 15-17 based on Kitsch, Ide, and Wong or Perolari. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Kitsch, Ide, and Wong, and we also affirm the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Kitsch and Perolari. IV. Russel, Ide, and Kitsch (Claims 2-6) The Examiner rejects claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Ide and Kitsch. Final Act. 19. Appellant presents arguments contesting the rejection of independent claim 2, but does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection of dependent claims 3-6. See Appeal Br. 12-13. We treat claim 2 as the Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 14 representative claim, with claims 3-6 standing or falling with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). a. Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner finds that Russell teaches most of the limitations recited in the claim. See Final Act. 19-21 (citing in part Russell, Fig. 1). We reproduce Russell’s Figure 1, below: Russell’s Figure 1 “is a front view of a pair of trunks embodying the present invention, portions of the garment being cut away in order [to] better [] illustrate the invention.” Russell, 1:26-39. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Russell teaches pants comprising “main body (2 excluding 3) including a first piece (front of main body) and a second piece (back of main body).” Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 15 Final Act. 19. The Examiner further finds that “the first piece includes a single continuous sheet having a first length between the first connecting region and the second connecting region (length of front of main body from 4 to 5 in the central portion).” Id. at 20. The Examiner finds, however, that Russell does not explicitly teach the following limitations: (1) wherein the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch; (2) an accommodating space, having a size based upon a difference between the first length of the first piece and the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch, is formed between the auxiliary supportive-crotch and the portion of the first piece within the central portion, and (3) a ratio of the first length to the third length is between 1.2 and 1.6., the first piece and the second piece being sewn together with each other to constitute a waist-wearing portion, the second piece having a single continuous sheet having the second length. Id. at 21. To address (1) and (2), the Examiner relies on Ide’s teaching of an “auxiliary supportive-crotch,” “wherein a length of the first piece is greater than a length of the auxiliary supportive crotch to provide desired support,” and an “accommodating space . . . having a size based upon a difference between the length of the first piece and the length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch.” Final Act. 21 (citations omitted). In combining Ide’s teachings with Russell, the Examiner reasons that [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the third length of the auxilliary [sic] supportive-crotch to be smaller than the first length of the first piece of Russell (such that Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 16 the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxilliary [sic] supportive-crotch) in view of Ide in order to fit the body of the wearer snugly and provide desired support. Id. at 21-22 (citing Ide, col. 2, 1:53-2:6). To address (3), the Examiner reasons that [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the ratio of the first length to the third length between 1.2 and 1.6 in order to optimize for proportions of different sized/shaped wearers to provide a snug fit and desired support. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 22 (citing MPEP § 2144.05 (ll)(A)). The Examiner further finds that the Russell/Ide combination fails to expressly teach “the first piece and the second piece being sewn together with each other to constitute the waist-wearing portion, the second piece having a single continuous sheet having the second length.” Final Act. 22. To satisfy this limitation, the Examiner relies on Kitsch’s teaching a first and second pieces “with the first piece and the second piece being joined at seams . . . to constitute a waist-wearing portion.” Id. (citation omitted). In further combining Kitsch’s teachings, the Examiner reasons that [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the first piece to the second piece of Ide via sewn seams in view Kitsch in order to provide further shaping to the garment in a flexible manner. Furthermore, providing sewn side seams is common in the garment manufacturing industry. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the second piece from a single Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 17 continuous sheet having the second length in order to comfortably cover the wearer’s backside. Id. at 22-23. b. Analysis Appellant contends that Russell fails to teach many of the limitations recited in claim 2, pointing out that “Russell is directed to bathing trunks.” See Appeal Br. 12-13. Embedded in this argument, Appellant emphasizes certain claim language that Appellant submits Russell fails to teach. See id. In particular, Appellant argues that Russell fails to teach: (1) “with the first piece and the second piece being sewn together with each other to constitute the waist-wearing portion” (Appeal Br. 12) (emphasis omitted); (2) “wherein the first piece includes a single continuous sheet having a first length between the first connecting region and the second connecting region” (id.) (emphasis omitted); and (3) “wherein the auxiliary supportive-crotch has a third length extending between the first and second connecting ends . . . [and] wherein the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch” (id. at 13) (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. As to (1), the Examiner does not rely on Russell for teaching “the first piece and the second piece being sewn together.” See Final Act. 19, 22-23. Rather, the Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the first piece to the second piece of Ide via sewn seams in view [of] Kitsch in order to provide further shaping to the Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 18 garment in a flexible manner.” Id. at 22-23; see also Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. As to (2), the Examiner finds that Russell teaches a “first piece,” which is the “front of main body [2 excluding 3]” (Final Act. 19) and that “the first piece includes a single continuous sheet having a first length between the first connecting region and the second connecting region (length of front of main body from 4 to 5 in the central portion)” (id. at 20). Upon reviewing Russell’s Figure 1, we find Russell’s “first piece” (front of main body 2, excluding 3) to be a “single continuous sheet,” as called for in the claims. Appellant fails to explain why, precisely, Russell’s “first piece” is not a “single continuous sheet.” See Reply Br. 5; see also Appeal Br. 12. Simply reciting the claim language and asserting that the prior art fails to teach a limitation, without supportive explanation, does not persuade us of Examiner error. Appellant further argues that Russell “teach[es] away from a first piece being a ‘single continuous sheet having a first length between a first connecting region and a second connecting region,” because “Russell appears to include a front seam (in addition to the rear crotch seam 5).” Appeal Br. 13. We do not find Appellant’s teaching away argument persuasive, either. The Examiner finds that Russell teaches a first piece having a “single continuous sheet.” See Final Act. 19, 20. The Examiner does not propose to modify Russell’s first piece to have a “single continuous sheet,” and even if the Examiner proposed such a modification, Appellant fails to cite to any disclosure in Russell that rises to a teaching away. “The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 19 away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As to (3), Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the rejection. Appellant attempts to show nonobviousness by attacking Russell individually, ignoring that the Examiner relies on the teachings of Ide and Kitsch to arrive at the claimed limitations. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; see also Ans. 9 (explaining the same). Here, the Examiner does not find that Russell teaches “wherein the auxiliary supportive-crotch has a third length extending between the first and second connecting ends . . . [and] wherein the first length of the first piece is greater than the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch,” as Appellant’s argument presumes. Compare Final Act. 19-20, with Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Rather, the Examiner relies on Kitsch’s and Ide’s teachings and proposes to modify Russell “to have made the third length of the auxiliary supportive-crotch smaller than the first length . . . in order to provide increased support to the wearer.” Final Act. 7-8 (citation omitted). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 2, and of claims 3-6, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-17. Appeal 2021-005086 Application 15/964,295 20 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2-6, 9, 11-13, 15- 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 2-6, 9, 11-13, 15-17 2-6, 9, 11 103 Kitsch, Ide 2-6, 9, 11 12, 13, 15, 16 103 Kitsch, Ide, Wong 12, 13, 15, 16 17 103 Kitsch, Perolari 17 2-6 103 Russell, Ide, Kitsch 2-6 Overall Outcome 2-6, 9, 11-13, 15-17 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