Michael GIROUARD et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 202015073580 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020) 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. 15/073,580 03/17/2016 Michael P. GIROUARD A15073US (98554.16P) 7229 22920 7590 05/06/2020 GARVEY, SMITH & NEHRBASS, PATENT ATTORNEYS, L.L.C. LAKEWAY 3, SUITE 3290 3838 NORTH CAUSEWAY BLVD. METAIRIE, LA 70002 EXAMINER SO, ELIZABETH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3792 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2020 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 MICHAEL P. GIROUARD and JONIE M. GIROUARD ____________ Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1–5 and 9–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the inventors as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “apparatuses, methods, and systems for simulating low and/or high intensity exercise.” Spec. 1:20–21. Claims 1, 2, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 17. An apparatus for simulating exercise comprising a garment worn by a user having an opening in the crotch area of the user and a neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) system for generating muscle contractions that is removably attached to the garment. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: NAME REFERENCE DATE Yamazaki US 2007/0173906 A1 July 26, 2007 Lundqvist US 2012/0245483 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 Gregory US 2014/0182048 A1 July 3, 2014 The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Gregory. II. Claims 3, 4, and 19–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, Gregory, and Lundqvist. Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 3 OPINION Rejection I Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, and 9–18 as a group. Appeal Br. 8– 11. We select independent claim 17 as representative, and claims 1, 2, 5, 9– 16, and 18 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding independent claim 17, the Examiner finds that Yamazaki discloses a neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) system for generating muscle contractions that is removably attached to a garment, as claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing, e.g., Yamazaki ¶ 15, Figs. 7, 8). The Examiner relies on Gregory for teaching an opening 202 in the crotch area “for the purpose of allowing the convenience of relieving oneself without completely undressing.” Id. (citing Gregory ¶ 11). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Yamazki’s garment to have an opening in the crotch area, as taught by Gregory, to provide NMES “while allowing the user the convenience of relieving oneself without stripping off the garment.” Id. Appellant argues that unlike Appellant’s invented garment, “neither Yamazaki nor Gregory is designed for long-term, all-day wear by a user.” Appeal Br. 8. In support, Appellant submits that (i) “Yamazaki does not teach and is not designed for big muscle stimulation,” such that “the Yamazaki garment provides . . . less than desirable results [which] could only be compensated for by increasing . . . parameters [to levels] uncomfortable to most users”; (ii) “Yamazaki’s electrodes are thick enough to house a power source (battery) and associated components, making these electrodes prominent under clothing and uncomfortable to sit on”: (iii) “[h]ad the Yamazaki device been designed with long-term use in mind, it Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 4 would have included a crotch opening for the user to go to the bathroom”2; and (iv) the Examiner’s proposed combination “would not be feasible and still would not allow for long-term, all day wear by a user,” because “Gregory’s intended design as an undergarment means that its user would not wear underwear underneath it, and with a zipper as its crotch opening, long-term wear would be extremely uncomfortable.” Id. at 8–10. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s rationale for combining Yamazaki and Gregory lacks rational underpinning. The Examiner relies on “convenience,” which does not necessarily depend on long-term, all-day wear by the user, but may depend on the availability of bathroom facilities. See, e.g., Gregory ¶ 6 (“the present invention is comprised of an undergarment to be worn by anyone at anytime they are occupying an outdoor environment without bathroom facility ability”). Notably, although Yamazaki is silent regarding the length of time the treatment garment is worn, Yamazaki discloses a treatment device causing “the contraction and relaxation of muscle around [a] body part to be treated due to the electric stimulation through [a] conducting pad” (Yamazaki ¶ 20) and Lundquist evidences that it would be within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that such relaxation treatment duration may be “one to two hours daily, or for a longer duration if the system is only used 2 to 4 times a week” (Lundquist ¶¶ 8, 88). 2 This statement by Appellant is an admission that if a known problem is being able to use the bathroom while wearing an NMES garment, an obvious solution would be to include a crotch opening. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results). Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 5 Further, Yamazaki describes treatment electrodes 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, with conducting pads 17a, 17b, secured to clothing 51 and also that “[t]o some areas of the clothing 51 are provided power nets P with excellent flexibility which is made from synthetic cloth such as nylon and urethane.” Yamazaki ¶ 71. In other words, clothing 51, as depicted in Figures 7 and 8 as short pants, are designed to be worn comfortably, and Appellant’s argument regarding the thickness of the electrodes causing discomfort is not supported by sufficient evidence. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (unsubstantiated attorney argument is no substitute for competent evidence). In addition, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Gregory discloses that “the nylon, coil zipper” provides “a ‘comfort of feel’ during any activity.” Gregory ¶ 11. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification is supported by rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring an obviousness conclusion to be based on explicit articulated reasoning with rational underpinning) cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellant also argues that although Gregory discloses an opening in the crotch area, “a person who has physical limitations would not be able to easily use the garment of Gregory,” and further, “the present invention does not add an extra step prior to going to the bathroom that the garment of Gregory does (navigating a zipper).” Appeal Br. 10. However, the Examiner’s reasoning has sufficient rational underpinning regardless of the physical limitations of a user. Notably, Gregory discloses that the garment is designed for ease of use, in that “[a]s the wearer squats for hygiene use, the shorts open naturally with [inverted fly 401] having no hindrance,” Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 6 wherein “[t]he zipper, 303 is pulled open with a cord, 501, not unlike a wetsuit.” Gregory ¶ 11. Claim 17, as written, does not exclude the presence of a zipper in the crotch opening. Appellant further argues that incorporating the crotch opening of Gregory to Yamazaki would mean that the opening would cross two different materials of Yamazaki (the power net where it meets the compression fabric), which would likely present a structural limitation because it would present different elastic properties of the two different materials and deform the opening. This, in turn, would affect how well the Yamazaki device stimulates the upper thighs of a user, because if the opening were deformed and loose, the electrodes in Yamazaki would not be in contact with the user’s thighs. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2 (“adding the zipper in Gregory to Yamazaki would compromise the structural integrity of the Yamazaki garment”). However, Yamazaki discloses that there is flexibility in the placement of power nets P: “[t]o some areas of the clothing 51 are provided power nets P” (Yamazaki ¶ 71), and Appellant has not demonstrated that it would be beyond the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamazaki’s garment, as depicted in Figures 7 and 8, to include an opening with a zipper, as disclosed in Gregory, considering the flexibility in placing power nets P and treatment of areas other than the crotch area necessitating structural components such as the electrodes and power net. For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that a zippered opening is not an opening, as claimed: “Gregory does not actually have a crotch opening,” but rather, “a zipper which allows a user to open the garment where the zipper is.” Reply Br. 2. This argument is made for the first time in the Reply Brief without good cause being shown. 37 C.F.R. Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 7 § 41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”). Notwithstanding, as discussed supra, we find that claim 17 does not exclude the opening from having a zipper, which functions to open and close the opening. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17, and claims 1, 2, 5, 9–16, and 18 fall therewith. Rejection II Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, and 19–23, the Examiner relies on Lundqvist for teaching an NMES system having different garment pieces with NMES pads attached to the different pieces for stimulating different body parts, wherein the garment pieces can be attached to one another by zippers, hooks, or hook-and-loop fasteners, as claimed. Final Act. 7 (citing, e.g., Lundqvist ¶ 93, 95, Figs. 5, 7). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to have modified Yamazaki’s NMES garment, as modified to have a zippered opening in the crotch area, according to Gregory, “to include additional garments, attachable to each other as taught by Lundqvist, to provide “different combinations of electrostimulation to different regions of the body as taught by Lundvist.” Id. Appellant submits that “[t]he purpose of Lundqvist is to elicit muscle relaxation, not exercise via muscle contraction,” and that “Lundqvist is designed for patients have injuries to their central nervous system.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that “[i]t would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for the users, whose central nervous system has been damaged, to open the crotch area with the zippered design of Gregory.” Id. Appeal 2019-006033 Application 15/073,580 8 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because the Examiner is not relying on the use of Lundqvist’s garment by users described in Lundqvist, as rationale for modifying Yamazaki. In other words, the Examiner proposes modifying Yamazaki’s garment, which is intended for use for “various treatments” (Yamazaki ¶ 6), such as “muscle training” (id. ¶ 8). Notably, Yamazaki also discloses designing the garment (i.e., placement of NMES electrodes) according to the desired treatment: “when a user puts the clothing on, the conducting pads for exclusive use are contacted to the body parts to be treated, so that the setting of the conducting pads before treatment can be simplified.” Id. ¶ 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 19–23. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 9– 18 103 Yamazaki and Gregory 1, 2, 5, 9– 18 3, 4, 19–23 103 Yamazaki, Gregory, and Lundqvist 3, 4, 19–23 Overall Outcome 1–5, 9–23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation