Low & Bonar Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 16, 20212021004534 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation