Low & Bonar Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2021

2021004534 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2021)

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.
16/000,456 06/05/2018 Lori Hascher 174758 6513
25944 7590 11/16/2021
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
KOSANOVIC, HELENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2021 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LORI HASCHER, JAMES MATHIS, and
ALLAN WINGFIELD
____________

Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–19. An oral hearing was held on
November 8, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Low & Bonar, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

2
CLAIMS
Claims 1–5, and 7–16 are directed to a vent, and claims 17–19 are
directed to a method for installing a roof ridge vent. Claims 1 and 17 are
independent. Appeal Br. (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative.
1. A vent, comprising:
a continuous, elongate mat having an upper face and a lower
face, and having a first portion and a second portion, the mat
comprising:
a plurality of columns of patterned three-dimensional
structures of a network of randomly convoluted polymeric
filaments having a first density, at least one of the plurality of
columns of patterned three-dimensional structures being
provided in the first portion, and at least one other of the
plurality of columns of patterned three-dimensional structures
being provided in the second portion;
a throat portion between the first portion and the second
portion, the throat portion having a network of randomly
convoluted polymeric filaments, wherein an entirety of the
network of randomly convoluted filaments of the throat portion
has a density higher than a density of the network of randomly
convoluted filaments of each of the first portion and the second
portion;
a first cover layer covering an outer edge of the first
portion; and
a second cover layer covering an outer edge of the
second portion.

REJECTION
Claims 1–5 and 7–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Railkar (US 2013/0165038 A1, published June 27, 2013),
Gassman (US 2015/0315794 A1, published Nov. 5, 2015), and Coulton (US
6,981,916 B2, issued Jan. 3, 2006).
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

3
ANALYSIS
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Railkar discloses a continuous,
elongate mat having a first portion (“on the left”), a second portion (“on the
right”), and a throat portion (“in the middle”) between the first and second
portions. Final Act. 2 (citing Railkar, Fig. 4). The Examiner “[n]ote[s] that
[the] main reference [Railkar] shows the throat with one layer that is less
dense and the second layer above the first layer with higher density.” Id. at
3. The Examiner concedes that Railkar does not disclose, inter alia, that:
(a) the first and second portions of the mat have a network of randomly
convoluted polymeric filaments formed as a plurality of columns, (b) the
network of filaments in the first portion and the second portion have a first
density, or (c) the network of filaments in the throat portion has a second
density different than the first density. Id.
The Examiner turns to Gassman for features (b) and (c). Final Act. 3.
Particularly, the Examiner finds that Gassman discloses a throat portion
(“upside-down V-shaped part 4802 of the [hinge] 4800 excluded part 4902”)
between a first portion and a second portion (“parts 354 on both ends”) and
having a network of randomly convoluted polymeric filaments. Id. (citing
Gassman ¶ 11, Figs. 48–50), id. at 4 (annotated Gassman Fig. 50 identifying
the “throat portion,” “1st portion,” and “2nd portion”). In view of this
disclosure of Gassman, the Examiner proposes to modify Railkar’s mat to
include a hinge either by cutting the less dense, lower layer or by applying
heat and compression to a vent. Id. at 3 (citing Gassman ¶ 166). The
Examiner states that, as a result of the modification, “[Railkar] would have
less of the less dense material in [the] entirety of the throat area and more of
the higher [density] material in the entirety of the throat area, compare[d] to
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

4
the first and second portion[s]. Therefore the throat portion having a second
density that is higher and different than [the] first density, due to less of the
lower [density] material.” Id. at 3–4. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Railkar with
Gassman’s hinge “in order to have [a] more bendable vent in order to
accommodate different slopes of [a] ridge roof.” Id. at 5; see also Ans. 6
(“The hinge 4800 allows the vent 300 to bend more sharply at the roof
edge[.]” (citing Gassman ¶ 166)).
Appellant contests the Examiner’s findings for Gassman. Particularly,
Appellant contends that Gassman does not teach that “an entirety of the
network of randomly convoluted filaments of the throat portion has a density
higher than a density of the network of randomly convoluted filaments of
each of the first portion and the second portion” (hereinafter, also “filament
density limitation”), as claimed. Appeal Br. 7. In contrast, Appellant
contends, “Gassman teaches that the density of the filaments in the end
sections is higher than that in the center section.” Id. at 9 (citing Glassman
¶ 112). Appellant acknowledges that this teaching in Gassman does not
specifically relate to Figures 48–50, but, nonetheless, contends that it relates
to the same, or a substantially similar, embodiment and discusses the
“hinge” concept. Id. Appellant also asserts, “the teaching that the density of
the network in the end portion is more than that of that in the center section
is consistent with Gassman’s intent, which is to avoid the end sections from
being crushed if they are stepped on by a roof worker.” Id. at 10 (citing
Gassman ¶¶ 116, 121). Thus, Appellant contends, “Gassman teaches, at
best, that the end sections will have a higher filament network density than
the center section, and thus would not lead one to the configuration whereby
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

5
a throat (center) section has a higher filament network density than sections
to either side of it.” Id. at 10. Therefore, Appellant contends, it would not
have been obvious to include the claimed filament density limitation in
Railkar. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. First, Appellant is correct that
Gassman discloses embodiments of the vent in which the center section has
a lower density than the end sections. For example, Figure 3 of Gassman
discloses an embodiment in which center section 306 has a lower density
than end sections 308. See Gassman ¶ 105, Fig. 3. Furthermore, Railkar
discloses a ridge vent as shown in Figure 7 that includes a reduced thickness
central portion 72. As described by Railkar, “[t]he edge portions 71 are seen
to be thicker than the central portion 72, and the edge portions are also
denser than the central portion.” Railkar ¶ 29 (emphasis added). This
teaching in Railkar, like the noted teaching in Gassman, is opposite to the
claimed filament density limitation.
Second, it appears to be the Examiner’s position that the proposed
modification of Railkar’s mat to include a “hinge” by removing lower
density fibers from a portion of the mat would necessarily result in the
“average” or “overall” density of the throat portion being higher than the
“average” or “overall” density of the “first portion” and “second portion” of
the mat. The Examiner alternatively proposes to form the hinge in Railkar
by the application of heat and pressure, as taught by Gassman. Ans. 8. As
for the embodiments shown in Figures 48–50 of Gassman, however, the
Examiner does not identify any corresponding description that the center
section, which includes hinge 4800, has a higher density than either of the
end sections. Absent such disclosure, it is speculative if forming a hinge in
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

6
Gassman’s single layer structure depicted in these figures by either of these
two disclosed techniques necessarily produces a density of fibers in the
“entirety” of the “throat portion” that is higher than the density of the fibers
in the end sections.
It is further speculative if forming a hinge in Railkar’s two-layer mat
structure as depicted in Figure 4 by either of Gassman’s two techniques
would necessarily produce a density of fibers in the “entirety” of the “throat
portion” that is higher than the density of the fibers in the “first portion” and
“second portion.” Appellant contends that it would not. See Appeal Br. 14
(“an entirety of the network of the throat (between 3 and 5 units) would not
be denser than the filament network in the first and second [side] portion[s]
(which include some 3, and some 5)”). Nor is it apparent why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have desired to create this density relationship
in Railkar’s two-layer mat in light of Railkar’s explicit teachings in regard to
the embodiment shown in Figure 7, which has a central portion 72 of
reduced thickness and lower density relative to edge portions 71. Railkar
discloses that this configuration provides suitable ventilation, as well as “the
additional advantages of crush resistance and moisture barrier properties.”
See Railkar ¶ 29, Fig. 7. Additionally, Figure 7 appears to show that the
ridge vent provides suitable bending properties about central portion 72
when installed on the ridge of roof 67.
Third, claim 1 recites “a plurality of columns of patterned three-
dimensional structures of a network of randomly convoluted polymeric
filaments having a first density” and that at least one of the columns is
provided in each of the first and second portions. Appeal Br. (Claims App.
A-1) (emphasis added). Claim 1 further recites “a density of the network of
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

7
randomly convoluted filaments of each of the first portion and the second
portion.” Id. (emphasis added). We construe “a density” in the latter
recitation to mean the prior-recited “first density.” This construction is
consistent with the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 4. Accordingly, claim 1
requires that “an entirety of the network of randomly convoluted filaments
of the throat portion has a density higher than [the first] density of the
network of randomly convoluted filaments of each of the first portion and
the second portion,” where the first density is the density of the network of
the randomly convoluted filaments of the columns.
The Examiner relies on Coulton as teaching a plurality of columns
(cusps or hollow spacer elements 36) of patterned three-dimensional
structures of a network of randomly convoluted polymeric filaments
(ventilation material 28) having a first density, where at least one column is
provided in each of the first portion and second portion, and a throat portion
between the first and second portions. Final Act. 5 (citing Coulton, Figs. 1,
2A). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Railkar/Gassman with Coulton’s cusps/columns or hollow spacer elements.
Id. at 7. However, the Examiner does not find that Coulton discloses or
suggests any relationship between the “first density” of elements 36 and that
of the entirety of the throat portion. Indeed, the Examiner does not state that
the proposed combination would meet the recited density relationship, where
“a density” is construed to mean the “first density” corresponding to the
columns taught by Coulton. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established
that the proposed combination meets all limitations of claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness for claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2021-004534
Application 16/000,456

8
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–5 and 7–16 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Railkar, Gassman, and Coulton.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Appeal Br. (Claims
App. A–2 to A–3). The Examiner’s findings and reasoning for claim 17 are
substantially the same as those for the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 2–7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17, and claims 18 and
19 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Railkar, Gassman, and
Coulton for substantially the same reasons as for claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–19 103 Railkar, Gassman,
Coulton
1–5, 7–19

REVERSED