Annamarie Joseph

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2022

2021000603 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2022)

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. 15/953,975 04/16/2018 Annamarie Joseph 9122 84403 7590 01/24/2022 Dennis Clarke 6717 Corner Lane McLean, VA 22101 EXAMINER PAGAN, JENINE MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3736 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2022 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 ANNAMARIE JOSEPH Appeal 2021-000603 Application 15/953,975 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4-10. Claims 2 and 3 are canceled, and no other claims are pending. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Annamarie Joseph. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000603 Application 15/953,975 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for providing a protective covering for at least a portion of a human or non-human animal consisting solely, exclusively, and only of a supply of dispensable plastic stretch film having a predetermined thickness and width prewound onto a spool and a dispenser-applicator for dispensing a predetermined length of film from said supply thereof and applying said predetermined length of said film to said human or non-human animal, wherein said dispenser-applicator is a handle coupled to and longitudinally aligned with said spool. REJECTIONS Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahlmann, US 2016/0221704 A1, published Aug. 4, 2019. Final Act. 5-6. Claims 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann. Final Act. 7. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann and Goodall, US 2005/0173281 A1, published Aug. 11, 2005. OPINION The Examiner finds that the embodiments of Dahlmann depicted in Figures 1 and 2 disclose each limitation of claim 1, including the recited system “consisting, solely, exclusively, and only” of a supply of dispensable plastic stretch file and a dispenser-applicator, as claimed. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues Dahlmann cannot anticipate claim 1 because Dahlmann’s system includes additional elements, namely a cap attached to Appeal 2021-000603 Application 15/953,975 3 the first end of its rotating member (handle/dispenser-applicator). Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 5-7. According to Appellant, every embodiment in Dahlmann includes a cap element, separate from the handle. Thus, Appellant argues, Dahlmann’s system consists of four separate elements while “the claimed system consists solely, exclusively, and only of three separate elements.” Reply Br. 7. We disagree with Appellant and agree with the Examiner that Dahlmann anticipates claim 1, even though Dahlmann describes that its handle includes a cap. In other words, even though claim 1 defines a system having only (i) a supply of dispensable plastic stretch file, (ii) a spool, and (iii) a dispenser-applicator (a handle coupled to . . . said spool), we agree with the Examiner that Dahlmann’s cap is part of its handle and thus constitutes a single element within the scope of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments would require interpreting “dispenser-applicator” or “handle” to be a unitary piece, but we find nothing in claim 1 or Appellant’s Specification that requires such a limiting interpretation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For claims 4-10, Appellant relies on the same arguments advanced for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 16, 17; see Reply Br. 8-9), and we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-10 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are sustained. Appeal 2021-000603 Application 15/953,975 4 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 102(a)(1) Dahlmann 1 4-8 103 Dahlmann 4-8 9, 10 103 Dahlmann, Goodall 9, 10 Overall Outcome 1, 4-10 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED