Velcro BVBA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 13, 2020

2020000416 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 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.
15/068,802 03/14/2016 LUIS PARELLADA ARMELA 05918-0633001 7913
26201 7590 11/13/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
GUO, TONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2020 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LUIS PARELLADA ARMELA and
CARLOS SÁEZ COMET
________________

Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable over at least the basic
combination of Shephard (US 2005/0181352 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2005), and
Krantz (US 2002/0022108 Al, pub. Feb. 21, 2002) as evidenced by Velcro

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Velcro BVBA as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802

2
(Velcro Brand 2015 Product line Brochure)2. An oral hearing was
conducted October 29, 2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(emphasis added to highlight key limitation in dispute):
1. A printed media display system, comprising
a media mounting surface carrying discrete male touch
fastening elements arranged in a field extending across the
surface, each male touch fastening element having a stem
projecting outward and supporting a fiber-engageable head; and
print media in the form of a flexible sheet having a
fastening side and a print side, the fastening side featuring
engageable fibers in a fibrous field extending across a length and
width of the flexible sheet, such that the fastening side of the
print media is releasably engageable with the media mounting
surface so as to display the print side;
wherein the media mounting surface and the fastening side
of the print media together form a releasable fastening having a
Peel Strength; and
wherein the flexible sheet has a Bending Rigidity;
the Peel Strength and Bending Rigidity related such that
the print media display system has a Wrinkle Propagation
Coefficient of between 10 and 30.

2 The Examiner applies Shepard (US 2004/0067342 Al, pub. Apr. 8, 2004)
in addition to this basic combination to claim 11 (Ans. 10), No (US
2010/0158546 Al, pub. June 24, 2010) in addition to this basic combination
to claims 13 and 14 (Ans. 12), and Shimomura (US 2005/0112493 Al, pub.
May 26, 2005) in addition to this basic combination to claims 15 and 16
(Ans. 12).
Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802

3
18. A printed media display system, comprising
a media mounting surface carrying discrete male touch
fastening elements arranged in a field extending across the
surface, each male touch fastening element having a stem
projecting outward and supporting a fiber-engageable head; and
print media in the form of a flexible sheet having a
fastening side and a print side, the fastening side featuring
engageable fibers in a fibrous field extending across a length and
width of the flexible sheet, such that the fastening side of the
print media is releasably engageable with the media mounting
surface so as to display the print side;
wherein the media mounting surface and the fastening side
of the print media together form a releasable fastening having a
Shear Strength; and
wherein the flexible sheet has a Torsional Rigidity;
the Shear Strength and Torsional Rigidity related such
that the print media display system has a Torsional Alignment
Coefficient of at least 5000.

Independent claim 17 is directed to “print media in the form of a
flexible sheet” and recites, as does claim 1, “the print media display system
has a Wrinkle Propagation Coefficient of between 10 and 30” (Claims
Appendix 21).
OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every
Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802

4
limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would
have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
art or the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have employed. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The Examiner relies upon the doctrine of inherency for the disputed
features of the wrinkle propagation coefficient and the torsional alignment
coefficient. There is no dispute that the applied prior art does not explicitly
disclose these features/properties. Rather, the Examiner’s position is that
once one of ordinary skill in the art chooses amongst known options for
Shepard’s hook and loop material based on Shephard and Krantz, one would
have “expected that the [claimed] properties” would have been obtained
(e.g., Ans. 6).
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not met his burden for
establishing that the Shephard/Krantz product is substantially identical to
Appellant’s such that it would have inherently possessed the properties
claimed (Appeal Br. 10 (“simply mating the same hooks. . .with the same
non-woven material” as used in Appellant’s Specification does not
necessarily result in the recited properties). Appellant points out the
Examiner must identify art that describes an “identical or substantially
identical hook-loop fastening in combination with a flexible sheet of
identical substantially identical structure (so as to presume a similar bending
stiffness)” (e.g., Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Appellant contends that the Examiner has, for example, failed to
show that the applied prior art has a starched based stable coating as
Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802

5
described in Appellant’s Specification so as to establish an identical or
substantially identical product based on the applied prior art (id.).
It is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be
substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is
on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or
inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that
it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the
burden is on the applicant is the same. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed
Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Here, however,
the Examiner has not adequately shown that the product disclosed in the
prior art is substantially the same and/or is produced by substantially the
same method described in Appellant’s Specification so as to shift the burden
to Appellant to prove otherwise. A preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellant’s position that the Examiner has not shown how the applied prior
art inherently possesses the claimed properties, or teaches or suggests the
claimed properties (Appeal Br. 12–17).
We appreciate that the Examiner attempts to rely upon Shephard ¶ 14
for a recognition that one of ordinary skill would have appreciated that the
weight of the coating is a result effective variable (Ans. 19). The Examiner
states that Shephard discloses that “the coated image on the back of the loop
is a result effective variable to the lateral stiffness of the hook/loop assembly
[such that] [A]ppellant is not the first person who recognizes or appreciates
[this]” (see Ans. 19, relying upon Shephard ¶ 14 (emphasis omitted)).
However, Shephard paragraph 14 discusses a “sheet-form placemat
system for a dog or cat” with a loop surface that engages hooks on “one or
more objects appropriate for the pet (such as, for example, a water bowl, a
Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802

6
place card with the pet’s name, or an image of the pet . . .)”. Paragraph 14 of
Shephard ends with “[t]he sheet form placemat has lateral stiffness sufficient
to not fold or buckle when subjected to normal pet activity”. The Examiner
then turns to the basis weight taught in No (applied only to dependent claims
13 and 14) to exemplify that basis weights recited in claims 13 and 14 are
obvious.
The Examiner’s conclusory statement that one would have known to
optimize coating weight based on paragraph 14 of Shephard and the basis
weights taught in No to achieve the claimed properties (Ans. 19) does not
amount to adequate reasoning based on the skilled artisan’s knowledge or
inferences and creativity employed that would support an obviousness
conclusion on this appeal record. For example only, the Examiner does not
make any findings with respect to the specific coating materials of the
applied references in relationship to the basis weights taught in No such that
it is reasonable to have reached a determination that the claimed properties
would have been obtained.
In light of these circumstances, a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellant’s position that the Examiner has not pointed to any
evidence to adequately establish that the applied prior art teaches or suggests
the claimed combination of features and properties for a print media display
as recited in each of Appellant’s independent claims.
On the record before us, the Examiner has not shown that each and
every limitation of the claim is inherent, or either described or suggested by
the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge or
inferences and creativity of the ordinary artisan. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d at
1074; see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A
Appeal 2020-000416
Application 15/068,802

7
rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these
facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art”).
The Examiner does not rely upon the other reference applied in the
§ 103 rejection of claims 11, 15, and 16, or any other rationale to cure these
deficiencies. Accordingly, we reverse all § 103 rejections on appeal.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12,
17–20
103 Shephard, Krantz,
Velcro
1–10, 12,
17–20
11 103 Shephard, Krantz,
Velcro, Shepard
11
13, 14 103 Shephard, Krantz,
No
13, 14
15, 16 103 Shephard, Krantz,
Shimomura
15, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–20
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal are
reversed.

REVERSED