Medline Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2020

2020000499 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 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.
14/208,631 03/13/2014 Deborah B. Adler BPMDL0062DN (10631U) 1198
27939 7590 08/26/2020
Philip H. Burrus, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
PATEL, BRIJESH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2020 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):
kberry@burrusiplaw.com
pburrus@burrusiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEBORAH B. ADLER, SUSAN MACINNES, and
YAYUN HUANG
____________

Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–15, 19, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed
March 13, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 8,

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Medline Industries,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 16–18 are canceled. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
2
2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 6, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 27, 2019 (“Ans.”).3
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to care kits. Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 1 and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 25
(Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A pack, comprising:
a base layer, the base layer foldable along at least four
transverse folding lines;
a first pouch selectively detachable from a first major
face of the base layer, the first pouch disposed between a first
transverse folding line and a second transverse folding line;
a second pouch selectively detachable from the first
major face of the base layer, the second pouch disposed
between a third transverse folding line and a fourth transverse
folding line; and
a fastening extension;
the base layer defining a first end to fold about the fourth
transverse folding line to conceal a bottom end of the second
pouch;
the base layer defining a second end to fold about the
first transverse folding line atop the first end;
the fastening extension extending distally from the
second end, the fastening extension to couple to a second major
face of the base layer to retain the pack in a closed
configuration.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Zdarsky US 4,286,714 Sept. 1, 1981

3 Although Appellant filed a Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), Appellant relied
predominantly on arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. See Reply Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
3
Kaumeyer US 4,859,084 Aug. 22, 1989
Adams US 5,020,673 June 4, 1991
Roegner US 5,779,033 July 14, 1998
Knecht US 6,296,094 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
Williams US 2009/0127045 A1 May 21, 2009
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Knecht and Adams.
II. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Knecht, Adams, and Roegner.
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Knecht, Adams, and Zdarsky.
IV. Claims 10–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Knecht, Adams, Williams, and Kaumeyer.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Knecht and Adams
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Knecht discloses a pack
substantially as recited, including a fastening extension, but does not
disclose the fastening extension “to couple to a second major face of the
base layer to retain the pack in a closed configuration” as recited. Non-Final
Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that Adams teaches such a fastening element
and determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the second major
surface of the base layer (of [Knecht]) to have a corresponding mating strip
(as taught by [Adams]) to ensure the pack remains in the closed and compact
position or configuration.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Adams, 4:24–35, Figs. 1–5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection fails to provide an
articulated reason, supported by a rational underpinning, for modifying
Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
4
Knecht because “the Knecht reference already has fasteners to ensure the
pack remains ‘in the closed and compact position or configuration.’”
Appeal Br. 17; see also id. at 17–18 (asserting that “Knecht speaks of
ensuring its pack remains ‘in a closed and compact position’ using one of a
pair of flaps, a pair of straps, or a zipper that spans the length of the pack”).
According to Appellant,
[i]t is not clear . . . how replacing these already present
retention devices with the singular strap of Adams would be
beneficial, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to do the same in view of the double closure (e.g., the
double flaps or double straps) that are already present and being
used in accordance with the desired principle of operation
occurring in the Knecht reference.
Id. at 18. We agree with Appellant’s arguments.
Knecht discloses a travel bag having a “combination of . . . flaps [that]
allows for multiple foldable configurations of the travel bag with storage of
items in the pockets.” Knecht, 1:47–49. Knecht discloses, with reference to
the single-fold configuration shown in Figure 1, that “[t]he bag includes a
first flap 10 and a second flap 12 joined together by a flap connector 14.
The first flap 10 includes a first sub-flap 16 and likewise the second flap 12
includes a second sub-flap 18.” Id. at 2:54–57. “[T]he first flap 10 includes
a pair of fasteners 44 attached thereto. These fasteners 44 secure the closure
flaps 46, attached to the second flap 12, to the first flap 10 to close the sides
of the bag, thereby further securing the articles carried therein.” Id. at 3:53–
57. With reference to the double-fold configuration shown in Figure 3,
Knecht discloses that
[t]he first sub-flap 16 and the second sub-flap 18 are folded
inward, underneath the upper portion of the first flap 10 and the
second flap 12 respectively. The closure flaps 46 can then be
rotated about the side of the bag, enveloping the articles located
Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
5
therein, as shown by the arrows 48. The fasteners 44 and
mating fasteners 50 secure the closure flaps into position.
Id. at 4:10–16. Knecht also discloses a “security feature” that “includes the
use of one or more bottom straps 52 that are secured to the back side of the
second flap 12” and “are then secured to the first flap 10 by use of male
buckle 54 and . . . female buckle 56.” Id. at 4:23–27. “[A]nchor strap 58 . . .
is releasably secured to the first sub-flap 16 such that at least one end of the
strap 58 can be unfastened from the sub-flap 16, secured about a towel rack
or other anchoring structure and then refastened to the sub-flap 16.” Id.
at 4:59–64.
Adams teaches a “foldable case having a plurality of item-holding
pockets provided on semi-rigid panel members [that] can be folded into a
relatively compact case for travel and storage.” Adams, 1:50–53. The case
includes “strap 66 . . . for securing the case in folded condition.” Id. at 4:24–
25.
With regard to the proposed modification of Knecht, the Examiner
takes the position that “[t]he benefit of having a singular strap (as taught by
Adams) on the pack (of Knecht), versus the already present retention
devices, is to allow the user to quickly gain access to the pack’s interior (i.e.,
where the pouches are located).” Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner
appears to propose removing Knecht’s existing closure features (i.e., closure
flaps 46 and bottom straps 52) and replacing them with a single strap (i.e.,
Adams’s strap 66). The Examiner reasons that such a modification would
provide quicker access to the interior of the travel bag. However, the
Examiner does not set forth any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning
to support this speculative position that a single strap would necessarily
provide quicker access to Knecht’s bag.
Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
6
Moreover, to the extent that the Examiner proposes to modify
Knecht’s fastening extension (anchor strap 58) so that it couples to a second
major surface of the base layer (see Non-Final Act. 4), the Examiner has not
explained adequately how such a modification would allow Knecht’s travel
bag to be secured in the double-fold configuration shown in Figure 3. In
other words, given that anchor strap 58 (the Examiner’s identified fastening
extension) is connected to first sub-flap 16, it appears that folding first sub-
flap 16 and then first flap 10 inwards for the double-fold carry orientation
would conceal anchor strap 58. See Knecht, Figs. 3–4. Here, absent
improper hindsight reconstruction, we fail to see a sufficiently reasoned
explanation based on some rational underpinning explaining why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Knecht as proposed
by the Examiner, and a reason for such modification is not otherwise evident
from the record.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2–4, 7, 9, 14, and 15 as being
unpatentable over Knecht and Adams.
Independent claim 19 contains similar recitations as claim 1, and the
Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and reasoning as for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App.); Non-Final Act. 5. Accordingly, for the
same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19,
or its dependent claim 20, as being unpatentable over Knecht and Adams.
Rejections II–IV – Obviousness based on Knecht, Adams, and
one or more of Roegner, Zdarsky, Williams, and Kaumeyer
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, and 10–13, which depend
from independent claim 1, rely on the same proposed combination of Knecht
and Adams that we find deficient for the reasons discussed above in
Appeal 2020-000499
Application 14/208,631
7
connection with Rejection I. See Non-Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner relies
on Roegner, Zdarsky, Williams, and Kaumeyer for teaching additional
recited features, but does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would
cure the aforementioned deficiencies in the combination of Knecht and
Adams. See id. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, and 10–13.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 9, 14,
15, 19, 20
103 Knecht, Adams 1–4, 7, 9, 14,
15, 19, 20
5, 6 103 Knecht, Adams,
Roegner
5, 6
8 103 Knecht, Adams,
Zdarsky
8
10–13 103 Knecht, Adams,
Williams, Kaumeyer
10–13
Overall Outcome 1–15, 19, 20
REVERSED