Vittorio Bologna et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

29453426 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
29/453,426 04/29/2013 Vittorio BOLOGNA 76404-281687(077146-0580) 5788
23644 7590 12/27/2019
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH)
P.O. Box 2786
Chicago, IL 60690-2786
EXAMINER
MCINROY, RUTH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2917
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
Patent-ch@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VITTORIO BOLOGNA and THAD M. IDE
____________

Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426
Technology Center 2900
____________

Before JILL D. HILL, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting the pending design claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a)2 for lack of written description in the originally-filed application.
See Non-Final Act. (dated Apr. 20, 2017) 2–5. The Board has jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) & 171(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Riddell, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 This application was filed on April 29, 2013, after the AIA amendments to
§ 112 took effect on September 16, 2012. See Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act (“the AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 4(e), 125 Stat. 284, 297 (2011);
MPEP § 2161(I).
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
As originally filed on April 29, 2013, the present application claimed
“the ornamental design for a PROTECTIVE SPORTS HELMET, as shown
and described.” Spec. 2. The originally-claimed design was shown in
Figures 1–6 (hereafter “Original Figures”). Id. at 1. Original Figure 1 is
reproduced here.

Original Figure 1
As representatively shown in Original Figure 1, the Original Figures depict
the external design of a helmet, with most of the design shown in solid lines
and therefore forming part of the claim, and only very limited portions of the
design shown in broken lines and therefore forming no part of the claim.
See Original Figs. 1–6.
Later, on June 18, 2013, Appellant filed a Preliminary Amendment, in
which Original Figures 1–6 were “canceled” and “replace[d]” with new
Figures 1–12 (hereafter “First Replacement Figures”). Prelim. Amend.
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

3
(filed June 18, 2013) 3–4. The First Replacement Figures depict two
embodiments of the external design of a helmet, a first embodiment in
Figures 1–6 and a second embodiment in Figures 7–12. Id. at 2. First
Replacement Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced here, with annotations A–C
added for further reference below.

First Replacement Figure 1. First Replacement Figure 2.
As representatively shown in the perspective view of First Replacement
Figure 1, and the front view of First Replacement Figure 2, the solid lines of
the claim are limited to the combination of three features of the helmet:
(A) two front vent openings; (B) portions of two sidewall segments
respectively wrapping around the front vent openings; and (C) the front
portion of a left ear hole and at least a portion of a right ear hole.3 See First

3 The figures only hint at the right ear hole, in First Replacement Figures 5
and 6. The Examiner refers to this portion of the claimed design as a “single
line directed to the ear hole on right side of” the helmet. Non-Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

4
Replacement Figs. 1–6; Appeal 8–9 (describing scope of claim). The second
embodiment is substantially the same as the first embodiment, except that
the claimed sidewall segment portions B extend further upwardly and
rearwardly than in the first embodiment. See First Replacement Figs. 7–12.
On December 10, 2014, Appellant filed another Amendment, in which
the First Replacement Figures were “replaced” with new Figures 1–12
(hereafter “Second Replacement Figures”). Amend. (filed Dec. 10,
2014) 2–3. Appellant stated the Second Replacement Figures “more clearly
define the scope of the claimed invention,” and also “include revised surface
shading.” Id. at 3; see also Appeal Br. 11–13 (summarizing reasons for the
changes). Second Replacement Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.

Second Replacement Figure 1. Second Replacement Figure 2.
As representatively shown in the perspective view of Second Replacement
Figure 1, and the front view of Second Replacement Figure 2, versus First

Given the bases for our decision as set forth below, the exact scope of the
claimed right ear hole does not affect the outcome of the present appeal.
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

5
Replacement Figures 1 and 2 reproduced above, the scope of the claimed
design is materially the same in the First and Second Replacement Figures,
at least insofar as the present decision is concerned. Compare First
Replacement Figs. 1–12 with Second Replacement Figs. 1–12; Appeal
Br. 11–13 (describing differences in more detail).
OPINION
A. Claimed Design(s) At Issue
We first decide, as a threshold issue, whether we must review the First
Replacement Figures, or the Second Replacement Figures, or both sets of
Replacement Figures, for compliance with the written description
requirement of § 112 in relation to the Original Figures.
The Examiner analyzes only the First Replacement Figures,
concluding the Second Replacement Figures are “not relevant” and “no
longer germane,” because the Preliminary Amendment was filed “after the
filing date” of the application. Ans. 1–24; see also Non-Final Act. 2–5
(analyzing only the First Replacement Figures). Appellant requests that we
review both sets of Replacement Figures. Appeal Br. 6–7, 22; Reply Br. 7–8
(contending the Second Replacement Figures “superseded” the First
Replacement Figures, and the Office “acted upon” the Second Replacement
Figures “on four separate instances” during prosecution prior to this appeal).
We determine we must review only the Second Replacement Figures
for compliance with the written description requirement of § 112. The

4 The Answer does not include page numbers. Our citations number the
first substantive page (beginning with “Grounds of Rejection . . . ”) as
page 1, extending through the signature page as page 12.
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

6
record establishes Appellant amended the application to “replace” the First
Replacement Figures with the Second Replacement Figures. Amend. (filed
Dec. 10, 2014) 2–3 (emphasis by Appellant); see also Appeal Br. 10–22
(summarizing prosecution history, arguing the Examiner errs in focusing on
the First rather than the Second Replacement Figures); Reply Br. 7. In the
directly following Office Action, the Examiner did not refuse to enter, and
also did not object to, the Second Replacement Figures. See Non-Final Act.
(dated Feb. 11, 2015) 1–2 (“The replacement drawings filed 12-10-14 have
been placed in the application file but are not relied upon for this
rejection.”). Because the Second Replacement Figures have replaced the
First Replacement Figures as presenting the claim that Appellant desires to
patent in this application, we will review only the Second Replacement
Figures for compliance with the written description requirement of § 112.
The claim on appeal is represented by the Second Replacement Figures;
whether or not the First Replacement Figures have written description
support is not relevant to that claim.
In any event, as briefly noted above, our comparison of the First and
Second Replacement Figures leads us to conclude that the scope of the
claimed design is materially the same, at least insofar as the present decision
is concerned. To be sure, the lines in the Second Replacement Figures are
sharper than in the First Replacement Figures, and the surface shadings have
been changed somewhat. Nonetheless, the claimed invention is materially
the same. For this additional reason, we will hereafter cite to and discuss
only the Second Replacement Figures. Our consideration and summary of
the Examiner’s analyses, therefore, will be applied to the Second
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

7
Replacement Figures, despite the Examiner’s focus and citation to the First
Replacement Figures.
B. Whether the Second Replacement Figures Comply with
the Written Description Requirement
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner determines the Second Replacement Figures “introduce
new matter not supported by the original disclosure,” so “[t]he original
disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the
art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the
application was filed.” Non-Final Act. 2 (citing In re Daniels, 144 F.3d
1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212 (CCPA 1981)).
The Examiner points out that the claim presented by the Original Figures “is
directed to an entire helmet,” whereas the two embodiments of the claim
presented by the Second Replacement Figures are each directed to “the
outline of two [front vent] holes and only a small portion of the [sidewall]
surface area adjacent the [front vent] holes,” in combination with portions of
the edges defining the left and right ear holes. Id. at 2–3 (annotating First
Replacement Figures). The Examiner also determines that “[t]he partial
[sidewall] shading around the two [front vent] openings . . . define a
boundary edge where none previously existed,” and the right ear hole
similarly “shows a new boundary line (only half of the hole is claimed).” Id.
at 4 (emphases added) (citing In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1368–69
(Fed. Cir. 2013)). Thus, the Examiner’s view is that “[t]he written
description as originally filed does not precisely set forth the particular
selection of features now claimed” and does not provide any “indication . . .
that would direct one skilled in the art to the subject matter now claimed.”
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

8
Id. at 3–4 (citing Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(f)).
Appellant raises several appealable issues5 in opposition to the
Examiner’s rejection, which we consider in turn.
Clarity of the Rejection
Appellant contends the rejection is unclear in the identification of the
new matter found not to be supported in the original application. See Appeal
Br. 23–24; Reply Br. 18–20. According to Appellant, the rejection presents
“tiny illegible images” which prevent Appellant from discerning the
Examiner’s position in this regard, such that the “lack of clarity and
articulation renders the Office Action defective on its face.” Appeal
Br. 23–24 (citing MPEP § 707.07(d) & § 2103).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We determine, instead,
that the rejection, as summarized in the previous section of this decision, is
sufficiently clear in explaining the reasons for the rejection that Appellant is

5 Appellant, additionally, asserts that the prosecution of this application has
included various “unsound and contradictory rejections” that are not
consistent with the Office’s goal of compact prosecution, as well as an
improper withdrawal of the application from a previously-filed appeal to the
Board. Appeal Br. 10–22, 35–36; Reply Br. 20–22. Review of such matters
may be had, if at all, via Petition to the Director but not appeal to the Board.
See 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) & § 6(b)(1) (Appellant “may appeal from the
decision of the primary examiner,” and the Board “shall . . . review adverse
decisions of examiners” (emphases added)); 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(a); In re
Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discussing, in general,
review by petition and by appeal); MPEP § 1201 (“The line of demarcation
between appealable matters for the Board and petitionable matters for the
Director . . . should be carefully observed.”). We therefore do not comment
further on these matters here.
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

9
able to respond. See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (discussing Examiner’s prima facie burden). Our conclusion is
bolstered by Appellant’s demonstrated ability to respond. See Appeal
Br. 22–35.
Identification of Ordinary Artisan
Appellant contends the rejection fails to identify the “artisan [(i.e.
POSA)]” through whose eyes the written description requirement is
evaluated, and “completely ignore[s]” the role of the POSA. See Appeal
Br. 25–26 (citing Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456, and Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368);
Reply Br. 14–15. Appellant does not, however, explain how the
identification of the POSA affects the written description analysis in this
case. Appeal Br. 25–26; Reply Br. 14–15.
Thus, Appellant’s challenge “do[es] not argue with any specificity
that the level of ordinary skill in the art would change the result” and
“instead raise[s] a generalized challenge to the [Examiner’s] decision
because it did not specifically articulate the level of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Fought, 941 F.3d 1175, 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Such a challenge is
“without merit.” Id. (requiring Appellant to “place[] the level of ordinary
skill in the art in dispute and explain[] with particularity how the dispute
would alter the outcome”) (emphasis added).
Claiming Less Than the Entire Helmet
A first basis for the Examiner’s rejection is that the original
application fails to demonstrate possession of a claim directed to less than an
entire helmet. Non-Final Act. 2–4. Specifically, according to the Examiner:
“[t]he written description as originally filed does not precisely set forth the
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

10
particular selection of features now claimed” and does not provide any
“indication . . . that would direct one skilled in the art to the subject matter
now claimed.” Id. (emphasis added); Ans. 1–9.
Appellant argues we cannot sustain the rejection on this basis, because
it does not properly apply the test for an adequate written description. See
Appeal Br. 22–23 (citing Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1457); Reply Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant. The test for whether the written description
requirement of § 112 is satisfied may be expressed in various ways, such as
whether the application’s original disclosure “reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter.” Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456 (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). An applicant need not “describe exactly the
subject matter claimed,” but “the description must clearly allow persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the applicant] invented what is
claimed.” Id. (quoting In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
The Federal Circuit has rejected the notion that “a design is ‘a unitary
thing,’ and thus that when the design is changed it becomes a different
design, and not subject to severance of any common subject matter.”
Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1457. We find no legal basis for the Examiner’s
determination that the written description requirement limits Appellant here
to claiming only an “entire helmet,” on the basis that the originally-filed
disclosure must “precisely set forth the particular selection of features now
claimed” by providing a “visual or written indication in the original
disclosure that would direct one skilled in the art to the subject matter now
claimed.” Non-Final Act. 2–4. The test for sufficiency of the written
description is, instead, whether the originally filed disclosure “reasonably
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

11
conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the
claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly
& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
That test may be met, in some circumstances, by broadening a claim
during prosecution via changing solid lines in an original drawing to broken
lines in an amended drawing. See, e.g., Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1455–57
(written description requirement satisfied when amended drawings did not
contain leaf pattern present in original drawings). Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection on the basis that the original application fails to
demonstrate possession of any claim directed to less than an entire helmet.
Nonetheless, the written description requirement does fetter, to some extent,
Appellant’s ability to broaden the claim via changing solid lines to broken
lines. See, e.g., Owens, supra. We thus turn to the Examiner’s second basis
for the rejection on appeal.
Claiming Feature B (Portions of Sidewall Segments) and Feature C
(Portions of Ear Holes)
A second basis for the Examiner’s rejection is that feature B identified
above introduces new matter because “[t]he partial [sidewall] shading
around the two [front vent] openings . . . define a boundary edge where none
previously existed.” Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner
similarly concludes feature C identified above “shows a new boundary line
(only half of the hole is claimed).” Id. (emphases added). To illustrate these
conclusions, the Examiner provides the following annotations (see
Non-Final Act. 3) to First Replacement Figures 2 and 3:
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

12

First Replacement Figures 2 and 3
(with Examiner’s Annotations).
These annotations identify where the Examiner finds Figure 2 to define four
new boundaries in the sidewalls surrounding the two front vent holes, and
Figure 3 to define two new boundaries in the left ear hole. The Examiner
concludes these “newly defined boundaries do not satisfy the written
description requirement . . . because they do not make explicit a boundary
that already exists but was unclaimed in the original disclosure.” Id. (citing
In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); see also Ans. 9–11
(explaining how Owens applies here).
Appellant contends in opposition that the Original Figures show
“surface shading proximate to” the front vent holes in solid lines, and show
the left ear hole in solid lines, so the written description requirement is
satisfied. Appeal Br. 17. According to Appellant, the Examiner has “failed
to cite relevant case law or sections from the MPEP to support the assertion
that a partially claimed [left ear hole feature C] or partially claimed [sidewall
feature B] constitute ‘new boundaries,’ when every line is disclosed in the
prior application.” Appeal Br. 18, 24. Appellant asserts the Examiner’s
rejection in this regard fails to follow Office’s Guidelines and well as MPEP
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

13
§ 1504.04(B), which in Appellant’s view permit Appellant to change any
solid line to a broken line and thereby “claim a subset of the originally
disclosed elements in a later-claimed design.” Appeal Br. 26–27; Reply
Br. 11–14. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s rejection is
inconsistent with Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456–57, and Owens, 710 F.3d
at 1368. Appeal Br. 27–31. Appellant finally contends the changes at issue
here are similar to changes that have been allowed in other applications to
issue as a patent, claiming continuation priority to a parent application.
Appeal Br. 31–35; Reply Br. 18.
We agree with the Examiner’s position that the Owens decision
requires that we sustain the rejection. In Owens, the original claim in a
parent application was directed to a design for a complete bottle, and the
applicant filed a continuation application claiming only “certain elements
found on the top and side portions of the original [complete] bottle.” Owens,
710 F.3d at 1363–64 (original claim), 1364–65 (continuation claim). The
Board had concluded the continuation claim was directed to “previously
undisclosed ‘trapezoidal sections occupying part, but not all, of the surface
area of the front and back panels” of the complete bottle, which was not
supported by the written description of the complete bottle in the parent
application. Id. at 1365–66 (emphasis added).
The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding “the broken line that Owens
introduced in his continuation application,” to limit the claimed design to a
trapezoidal surface area of the complete bottle, lacked written description in
the parent application disclosure. Id. at 1366–68. In particular, the Federal
Circuit determined the parent application “discloses a design for a bottle
with an undivided pentagonal center-front panel, whereas the continuation
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

14
claims only the trapezoidal top portion of that center-front panel.” Id. at
1368 (emphases added). The Federal Circuit held substantial evidence
supported the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would not have
recognized, upon reading the parent application’s disclosure, “that the
trapezoidal top portion of the front panel might be claimed separately from
the remainder of that area.” Id. (citing Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). That is, “the parent
[application] disclosure [did] not distinguish the now-claimed top
trapezoidal portion of the panel from the rest of the pentagon in any way.”
Id.
Similarly here, the borders to the claimed design that Appellant has
introduced in the Second Replacement Figures lack written description in
the originally-filed disclosure. In particular, the Original Figures do not
demonstrate possession of a design wherein feature B stops at the edges of
the front vent openings, and feature C is limited to only half of the ear hole.
These amendments in claim scope are directly analogous to the amendment
in Owens, in which the undivided pentagonal center-front panel of the
original design was limited to only the trapezoidal top portion of that
center-front panel.
Appellant correctly notes that the Second Replacement Figures do not
add “a broken boundary line” to identify the new borders in the claimed
design, whereas in Owens such a broken boundary line was added. See
Appeal Br. 12 n.4, 31 (“Owens is entirely inapplicable to the present
Application because . . . [Appellant] has not added broken (or dot-dash)
boundary lines.”) This, however, is a distinction without a difference. The
problem in Owens was that Appellant introduced a boundary into the claim
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

15
that was not identified in the original disclosure. See Owens, 710 F.3d
at 1366–68 (“The subject of this appeal is the broken line that Owens
introduced in his continuation application. The parties agree that the parent
application discloses no boundary that corresponds (either explicitly or
implicitly) to this newly-added broken line.”) (emphasis added); see also id.
at 1368 (“the question for written description purposes is whether a skilled
artisan would recognize upon reading the parent’s disclosure that the
trapezoidal top portion of the front panel might be claimed separately from
the remainder of that area”). Appellant has the same problem here, even
though Appellant did not add a broken line to identify the new boundary.
Finally, the issued patents cited by Appellant do not persuade us to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection. There is no evidence that the issue of
continuation priority arose during prosecution of those patents, much less
that the Owens decision was considered or persuasively distinguished during
prosecution. See Appeal Br. 31–35; Reply Br. 18.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of the claimed
design on appeal as lacking written description in Appellant’s original
disclosure.
C. Continuation Priority
The Examiner objects to Appellant’s designation of the present
application as being a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial
No. 29/391,016 (“the ’016 application). See Non-Final Act. 4–6. The basis
for the objection is that the presently claimed design was not described in the
’016 application. See id. at 4.
Appellant urges us to determine whether continuation priority is
proper, “if it is determined that the [Second] Replacement Figures satisfy the
Appeal 2018-003279
Application 29/453,426

16
written description requirement of Section 112” with respect to Original
Figures 1–6 of the present application. Reply Br. 6, 8, 21–22. Having
resolved the written description rejection adversely to Appellant, we need
not separately address the Examiner’s objection to continuation priority.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 112(a) Written Description 1
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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