Martin Wildeman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 9, 2019

13275765 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2019)

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.
13/275,765 10/18/2011 Martin Wildeman TIE-014A 8682
99722 7590 10/09/2019
J.M. Robertson, LLC
P.O. Box 131404
Birmingham, AL 35213
EXAMINER
JUSKA, CHERYL ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2019 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 MARTIN WILDEMAN, MICHELIS HARDEGREE,
WILLIAM D. BELL, ROBERT A. JOHNSON, DAVID K. OSTEEN, and
WADE WALLACE
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765
Technology Center 1700

Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Heard September 26, 2019. The Official Transcript will be made of record
in due course.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tietex
International, LTD. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed September 14, 2017,
at 1.
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

2
We REVERSE.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cleaning textile sheet element comprising
a plurality of ground and pile yarns stitched through a substrate layer. The
ground yarns are stitched in spaced rows through the substrate layer and are
filament yarns having a linear density between about 20 to about 300 denier
with a denier per filament level greater than 1. The pile yarns comprise
microdenier fibers and are stitched in surface loop construction through the
substrate layer so as to define a discontinuous patterned arrangement of three
dimensional surface elements projecting above the ground yarn stitches.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A cleaning textile sheet element, the textile sheet element
comprising:
a substrate layer; and
a plurality of ground yarns extending in stitched relation
through the substrate layer to form an arrangement of
ground yarn stitches disposed in spaced rows along the
substrate layer, wherein the ground yarns are filament yarns
having a linear density in the range of about 20 denier to
about 300 denier and a denier per filament (dpf) level
greater than 1; and
a plurality of pile yarns comprising micro denier fibers,
said pile yarns extending in stitched relation through the
substrate layer in surface loop construction such that said
pile yarns define a discontinuous patterned arrangement of
three-dimensional surface elements projecting above the

3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 18, 2011,
the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) dated
November 16, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated December 12,
2017, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 10, 2018.
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

3
ground yarn stitches for wiping and cleaning a surface
separate from the textile sheet element and wherein all three-
dimensional surface elements projecting above the ground
yarn stitches consist entirely of looped pile yarns comprising
micro denier fibers, and wherein the pile yarns provide
enhanced cleaning performance relative to yarns with a
denier per filament (dpf) level greater than 1.

Independent claim 2 similarly recites a cleaning textile sheet element
comprising a substrate, a plurality of ground yarns stitched in spaced rows
through the substrate and having a linear density in the range of about 20
denier to about 300 denier and a denier per filament (dpf) level greater than
1, and a plurality of microdenier fiber pile yarns stitched in surface loop
construction through the substrate layer so as to define a discontinuous
patterned arrangement of three dimensional surface elements projecting
above the ground yarn stitches.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Truong et al. (“Truong”)

WO 97/49326 A1 Dec. 31, 1997
Ferenc et al. (“Ferenc”)

US 6,500,444 B1 Dec. 31, 2002
Wildeman et al.
(“Wildeman”)
US 2004/0115388 A1 June 17, 2004

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over Wildeman and Truong; and
2. Claim 12 as unpatentable over Wildeman and Truong, and further in
view of Ferenc.
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

4
OPINION
Rejection 1: Obviousness over Wildeman and Truong
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wildeman in view of Truong, or alternatively, Truong in
view of Wildeman. Ans. 3–8. For the purposes of this appeal, we treat these
rejections as a single obviousness rejection over the combination of
Wildeman and Truong. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961)
(“In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the
applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of
exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on
B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).
After review of the Examiner’s and Appellant’s opposing positions,
relative to the applied prior art, Appellant’s claims, and Specification
disclosures, we determine that Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we reverse this rejection for the
reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs.
The Examiner finds that Wildeman discloses a patterned pile fabric having a
stitchbonded construction substantially as claimed, except, among other
things, that the pile yarns comprise microdenier fibers. Ans. 3–4. With
regard to this missing limitation, the Examiner finds that the use of non-
microdenier filaments as ground yarns and microdenier filaments as pile
yarns is known in the pile textile art as evidenced by Truong. Id. at 4. The
Examiner finds that Truong teaches a cleaning article as recited in claim 1
except for the fabric being a stitchbonded fabric having a discontinuous
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

5
pattern of pile yarns. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that Truong
comprises a cloth layer and a support, wherein the cloth layer is a knit fabric
comprising ground yarns with a linear density of 40–300 denier per yarn (or,
e.g., 4.4 denier per filament) and pile yarns comprising microdenier fibers.
Id. In addition, the Examiner finds that while Truong’s construction is
circular knit, other fabric constructions may be employed. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to select macrodenier
filament ground yarns and microdenier fiber pile loop yarns as taught by
Truong for Wildeman’s ground and pile yarns in order to provide a pile
fabric having substantial fabric integrity with predictable dimensional
stability and microfiber pile yarns for a wiping surface of a cleaning cloth
having improved cleaning properties. Id. at 5. Alternatively, the Examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to select a stitchbonded construction
as taught by Wildeman for Truong’s cloth to a durable cleaning article with
substantial fabric integrity capable of withstanding increased scrubbing
stress. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to have
combined Wildeman and Truong to arrive at the cleaning textile sheet
element of claim 1 because, among other things, Truong’s teaching
regarding the lack of integrity in its microfiber-containing pile yarns negates
any reasonable expectation of success in subjecting such yarns to stitching
through a substrate in a surface loop construction. Appeal Br. 5–6.
Appellant notes that Truong teaches that these microfibers tend to
delaminate or split such that the fiber and pile yarn structures may no longer
be observable under a microscope and may be seen arranged in distinct
bundles woven into the cloth supported by the ground yarns. Id. Appellant
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

6
contends that such a result is inconsistent with Wildeman’s objective of
providing a stitchbonded product having substantial fabric integrity. Id. at 6.
In addition, Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had no reason to modify Truong to include a stitchbonded construction
as taught by Wildeman because neither Truong nor Wildeman teaches any
reason why a discontinuous patterned arrangement of surface elements
formed by the pile yarn loops would be desired in a cleaning product. Id. at
7.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Although
the Examiner finds that Truong’s teaching that the microfibers delaminate or
split is how the microdenier fibers are formed and is independent of the
construction of the fabric (Ans. 10), we disagree. Truong expressly teaches
that, instead of yarns or the original fibers, the individual microfibers are
arranged in distinct side-by-side, substantially parallel bundles woven into
the cloth and supported by the ground yarn. Truong 23:13–17. Such a
construction is inconsistent with Wildeman’s teaching of providing loops of
pile yarns stitched within a substrate having stitched ground yarn having
substantial fabric integrity. As Appellant argues, the skilled artisan would
not look to modify Wildeman’s pile yarn with Truong’s microfiber
containing pile yarn with a reasonable expectation of success, because
Truong’s teaching that the microfiber containing pile yarn delaminates or
splits to form these distinct bundles of microfibers is contrary to Wildeman’s
objective to provide a product suitable as automotive or residential
upholstery having substantial fabric integrity. Conversely, the skilled artisan
would not look to modify Truong’s circular knit fabric construction with
Wildeman’s stitchbonded construction with a reasonable expectation of
Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

7
success because Wildeman’s use of macrodenier pile and ground yarns in
such a construction results in a product with substantial fabric integrity
(suitable, e.g., for upholstery: Wildeman ¶ 4), which is inconsistent with
Truong’s resulting knitted cloth having distinct microfiber bundles, that is
both oleophilic and hydrophilic (Truong 5: 8–9). Also, although Truong
teaches that the cloth can be made by known knitting techniques as well as
by weaving methods other than by circular knitting (Truong 23:18–19), the
Examiner does not direct our attention to any evidence that Wildeman’s
stitchbonding process is either a knitting or a weaving method to which the
ordinary artisan would have looked for forming Truong’s pile cloth.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons
given above and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 2 over the combination of
Wildeman and Truong.

Rejection 2: Obviousness over Wildeman, Truong, and Ferenc
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wildeman and Truong, further in view of Ferenc. Ans. 9.
Claim 12 depends from claim 2, and further requires that the substrate is a
multi-layer structure comprising a substantially open-pore hydrophobic first
layer and a substantially hydrophilic second layer. The Examiner does not
rely on Ferenc to remedy the deficiencies in the combination of Wildeman
and Truong discussed above. Therefore, for the same reasons that we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 2, we likewise
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12.

Appeal 2018-003394
Application 13/275,765

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103(a) Wildeman,
Truong,
1, 2
12 103(a) Wildeman,
Truong,
Ferenc
12
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 12

REVERSED