M & C INNOVATIONS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 9, 2020

2020001784 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 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.
15/096,210 04/11/2016 Matthew Alexander Vanderberg 1034.054 6256
36790 7590 10/09/2020
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2020 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW ALEXANDER

Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–27, 29, 30, 33–35, and 39–46.
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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“M & C INNOVATIONS, LLC.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 22, 39, and 44 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 39, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
39. A method for handling sweating at a cooler, the method
comprising:
(a) disposing a cover about one or more exterior walls of
the cooler that extend from a base of the cooler to an
upper rim of the cooler; and
(b) releasably securing the cover to the cooler by
fastening the cover to the base of the cooler and to the
upper rim of the cooler, with the cover extending
therebetween in covering relation to the one or more
exterior walls of the cooler;
(c) wherein the cover comprises a moisture-absorbent
material.
Appeal Br. 34, Claims App.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dobbie US 6,036,047 Mar. 14, 2000
Giondi US 3,396,885 Aug. 13, 1968
Purvis US 2002/0029992 A1 Mar. 14, 2002
Connelly US 2012/0217255 A1 Aug. 30, 2012

Rejections
Claims 22–24, 33, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Dobbie.
Claims 25, 29, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dobbie.
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

3

Claims 26, 27, 30, 43, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dobbie in view of Giondi.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dobbie in view of Purvis.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dobbie in view of Connelly.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dobbie in view of Connelly and Purvis.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 39 recites “[a] method for handling sweating at a
cooler” including “releasably securing [a] cover to the cooler by fastening
the cover . . . to the upper rim of the cooler.” Supra. The foregoing
recitation of claim 39 requires some form of fastening, either direct or
indirect, between the cover and the cooler at the cooler’s upper rim. See,
e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 35, 50, 52, Figs. 1–3 (showing snap connectors 22, 24 that
releasably secure wrap-around side cover 20 to upper rim 14 of cooler 10).
The Examiner finds Dobbie teaches a cooler including a cooler body
and cover (i.e., improved thermal wrap 10). Final Act. 4; see Dobbie col. 3,
l. 66 – col. 4, l. 4. Dobbie’s thermal wrap, in the broadest context, consists
of base portion 12 that wraps around a forward, rearward, and opposing side
walls of a cooler and cover member 30 that wraps for a cooler’s lid. See
Dobbie col. 4, ll. 9–15, 42–43. The Examiner further finds that Dobbie’s
thermal wrap 10 is fastened to the upper rim of the cooler body. See Final
Act. 7 (annotating Dobbie Fig. 2).
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

4

The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding that Dobbie’s
thermal wrap 10 is fastened to the upper rim of the cooler body is
inadequately supported. See Appeal Br. 12–19, 27; Reply Br. 2–16. The
Appellant supports this argument by pointing out that “Dobbie is
inconsistent and ambiguous, as the specification describes a physical
coupling that is inconsistent with the figures, and the figures include
illustrated lines that are never described or explained.” Reply Br. 9, 15. The
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
As for Dobbie’s written description, Dobbie fails to describe a
fastener, such as a hook and loop fastener that is fixed to a cooler body or
more specifically, at a cooler’s upper rim. See Appeal Br. 14–15. Although
Dobbie describes an invention in which “[a] cover member is provided that
is dimensioned for coupling with a removable cover of [a] cooler,” Dobbie is
clear that this coupling occurs by securing cover member 30 to base
portion 12 by fastening strips of hook and loop material. See Dobbie col. 2,
ll. 28–38, col. 4, ll. 47–57, col. 5, l. 43 – 6, l. 3, Figs. 3, 4. The result of
coupling the cover member and base member is that the cooler is completely
contained within the wrap. See id. Accordingly, contrary to the Examiner’s
finding that Dobbie’s written disclosure teaches that cover member 30 is
directly fastened to the cooler’s lid (see Ans. 5 (citing Dobbie col. 2,
ll. 27–29)), Dobbie’s written disclosure teaches using strips of hook and loop
material to secure one portion of the wrap to separate portion of the wrap
(see id.). See also Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 15–16.
As for the Dobbie’s figures by themselves, the Appellant argues that
Figures 2–4 “are intended to illustrate the same cover portion of the same
thermal wrap,” but the depiction of Dobbie’s invention in the figures are
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

5

inconsistent at least because of the number and locations of perforated
rectangular boxes.2 See Appeal Br. 12–14. The Appellant’s argument is
persuasive.
In response, the Examiner finds that multiple strips of hook and loop
material shown in Figure 2 are missing from Figure 4 because they are on
the opposite (hidden) side of the wrap’s base portion 12. See Ans. 3–4
(annotating Dobbie’s Figures 2 and 4). This finding is unsupported.
Dobbie’s Figure 4 shows a single perforated rectangular box at second side
portion 20. This perforated rectangular box represents a strip of hook and
loop material 26 positioned on the opposite (hidden) side of the wrap’s base
portion 12.3 See Dobbie col. 4, ll. 34–36. Accordingly, if Dobbie were to
include additional strips of hook and loop material on the opposite (hidden)
side of the wrap’s base portion as found by the Examiner, they would have
been depicted as perforated rectangular boxes. See Reply Br. 10–11.
Because multiple perforated rectangular boxes are missing from Figure 4,
we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding.
An important aspect of the Examiner’s position is the finding that
Figure 2 depicts base portion 12 as having multiple strips of hook and loop
material that are engaged with the cooler. See Final Act. 7, Ans. 4. The
Examiner’s position is based on an initial assumption that Figure 2 clearly
shows a partial cut-away portion in which a strip of hook and loop material

2 Figure 2 shows three perforated rectangular boxes, which lack reference
numbers.
3 The strip of hook and loop material 26 attaches to the strip of hook and
loop material 24 at the opposite end of the wrap’s base portion 12 to secure
the wrap’s base portion 12 around a cooler. Dobbie col. 4, ll. 32–39.
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

6

on the surface of the lower portion of base portion 12 engages with the
cooler. Final Act. 7. Contra Appeal Br. 15, Reply Br. 17–18 (“This
illustrative partial cut-away appears to show that dotted lines are used to
indicate a strip of hook and loop material, but aside from that it is
exceedingly unclear what is being illustrated.”). Additionally, the
Examiner’s position includes a further assumption that the perforated
rectangular box shown at the upper portion of base portion 12, which lacks a
partial cut-away portion, is nonetheless the same as the lower portion of base
portion 12, which includes the partial cut-away section. This further
assumption is inadequate to support a finding that a strip of hook and loop
material positioned on the upper rim of the cooler.
For the purposes of this appeal only, even if we were to agree with the
Examiner’s initial assumption, it is significant that Figure 2 does not show a
similar partial cut-away at the upper portion of the wrap’s base portion 12.
Indeed, Figure 2 fails to show the surface of cooler’s upper rim because it is
covered by base portion 12. Figure 2 does show a perforated rectangular
box at the upper portion of the wrap’s base portion 12, which appears to
represent a strip of hook and loop material on the opposite (hidden) surface
of the upper portion of base portion 12. This distinction appears to have
been overlooked by the Examiner. Accordingly, the Examiner’s further
assumption is not based on what Figure 2 clearly shows or reasonably
suggests. See Appeal Br. 15; see, e.g., Reply Br. 18 (“th[e] illustrated strip
of hook and loop material could be designed for use in folding and storage
of the thermal wrap.”). Therefore, we determine that the Examiner fails to
explain how Figure 2 clearly shows or reasonably suggests to one of
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

7

ordinary skill in the art that a fastener, such as a strip of hook and loop
material, is positioned at the upper rim of the cooler.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner’s finding
that Dobbie teaches “releasably securing [a] cover to the cooler by fastening
the cover . . . to the upper rim of the cooler,” as recited in claim 39, is
inadequately supported. Further, we determine the Examiner fails to rely on
the teachings of Connelly and/or Purvis in any manner which would remedy
the inadequately supported finding. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 39 and dependent claims 40
and 41.
Independent claim 22 calls for a cooler including a cooler body and a
cover, “wherein the cover is releasably secured by fasteners directly to both
the base of the cooler body and to the upper rim of the cooler body and
extends there between in covering relation to the exterior of the one or more
cooler walls.” Appeal Br. 31, Claims App. Similar to the rejection of
claim 39, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 includes findings that are
inadequately supported. See Final Act. 2–3. For the reasons discussed
above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 and dependent
claims 23, 24, and 33. Further, the Examiner fails to rely on the additional
teachings of Dobbie, Giondi, Purvis, or Connelly in any manner which
would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 25–27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 42, and 43.
Independent claim 44 calls for a cooler including a cooler body and a
wrap-around side cover, “wherein the wrap-around side cover is releasably
secured by fasteners directly to both the rim and the base around the
Appeal 2020-001784
Application 15/096,210

8

periphery of the cooler.” Appeal Br. 35, Claims App. Similar to the
rejection of claim 39, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44 includes findings
that are inadequately supported. See Final Act. 2–3. For the reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44 and
dependent claim 45. Further, the Examiner fails to rely on the teachings of
Giondi in any manner which would remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 44. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 46.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
22–24, 33,
44, 45
102(b) Dobbie

22–24, 33,
44, 45
25, 29, 42 103(a) Dobbie 25, 29, 42
26, 27, 30,
43, 46
103(a) Dobbie, Giondi 26, 27, 30,
43, 46
34, 35 103(a) Dobbie, Purvis 34, 35
39 103(a) Dobbie, Connelly 39
40, 41 103(a) Dobbie, Connelly,
Purvis
40, 41
Overall
Outcome
22–27, 29,
30, 33–35,
39–46

REVERSED