Ex Parte Cates et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

11389941 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

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. 11/389,941 03/27/2006 Elizabeth Cates 5941 2906 25280 7590 09/24/2012 Legal Department (M-495) P.O. Box 1926 Spartanburg, SC 29304 EXAMINER PATEL, VINOD D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2012 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 ELIZABETH CATES and ALFRED R. DEANGELIS ____________________ Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Elizabeth Cates et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 15-19, 21-23 and 26, which are all the claims remaining of record, claims 3, 7, 12-14, 20, 24 and 25 having been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to electric heating elements, particularly those used for heatable garments such as gloves. Spec., para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An electric heating element comprising: a conductive fabric having a first and second side comprising conductive fibers or yarns and having a surface resistivity of between 0.1 and 100 ohms, wherein the conductive fabric is selected from the group consisting of woven, knit, or nonwoven; a continuous or discontinuous patterned conductive layer on at least the first or second side of the conductive fabric, wherein the patterned conductive layer comprises a layer selected from the group consisting of a patterned conductive paste, an additional conductive fabric cut or formed into a pattern, an embroidery layer comprising conductive yarns, and a plated patterned metallic layer, wherein the patterned conductive layer is electrically connected to the conductive fabric, wherein the patterned conductive layer covers only a portion of the conductive fabric forming patterned conductive areas and unpatterned areas, and wherein the Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 3 patterned conductive areas have a higher conductivity than the unpatterned areas; and, at least 2 conductive buses on the conductive fabric, wherein the patterned conductive layer is disposed on the conductive fabric between the buses, wherein the conductive buses are in electrical contact with the conductive fabric, wherein the buses have a higher electrical conductivity than the conductive fabric and the patterned conductive layer, and wherein the electric heating element has regions of differing resistivity between the buses. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Niibe Child Gurevich Kleshchik Rutherford DeAngelis US 4,149,066 US 6,001,749 US 6,057,530 US 6,649,886 B1 US 6,667,100 B2 US 7,151,062 B2 Apr. 10, 1979 Dec. 14, 1999 May 2, 2000 Nov. 18, 2003 Dec. 23, 2003 Dec. 19, 2006 THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and DeAngelis. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Niibe. Claims 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Rutherford. Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 4 ISSUE Would the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child, as proposed by the Examiner, have resulted in a patterned conductive layer on at least one side of a conductive fabric? ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 based on Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gurevich discloses an electric heating element comprising a conductive fabric 11, a patterned conductive layer 21 on at least one side of the conductive fabric 11, and the other limitations of claim 1 except for (i) the conductive fabric having a surface resistivity of between 0.1 and 100 ohms, (ii) the patterned conductive layer covering only a portion of the conductive fabric, and (iii) the patterned conductive areas having a higher conductivity than the unpatterned areas. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also finds that Kleshchik discloses missing limitation (i) and Child discloses missing limitations (ii) and (iii). Ans. 5. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Gurevich with the missing limitations as taught by Kleshchik and Child “to generate and maintain required temperature in a certain local zone” of Gurevich. Ans. 6. Gurevich discloses a fabric heating element that is made of electrically conductive carbon carrying fabric impregnated with a soft filling material. Gurevich, col. 3, ll. 63-65. As shown in Figure 1, the fabric heating element can be manufactured by advancing a carbon carrying fabric basis 11 through a solution of soft filling material 21 in an impregnation basin 31. Gurevich, col. 4, ll. 36-40. The soft filling material 21 acts as a Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 5 stabilizer and can also augment the electro-conductive characteristics of the fabric 11. Gurevich, col. 4, ll. 55-58. Appellants argue that Gurevich fails to disclose the soft filling material being applied to the fabric in a patterned manner. App. Br. 6. We agree with Appellants. The soft filling material 21 of Gurevich impregnates the carbon carrying fabric 11 and as such is not applied as a layer on the fabric 11 in either a patterned or unpatterned manner. Therefore, the soft filling material does not comprise a layer on at least one of the first or second sides of the conductive fabric, as required by claim 1. Kleshchik and Child do not overcome this deficiency of Gurevich. We also note that Gurevich teaches that one objective of the fabric heating element is to radiate uniform heat over the entire heating surface and thereby prevent over-heated spots. Gurevich, col. 3, ll. 7-9. The Examiner has failed to explain why, in light of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been moved to modify Gurevich’s fabric heating element to provide areas having a higher conductivity than other areas, which would result in uneven heating. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1—and of claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 depending therefrom—under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child. Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 over the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child and further in view of Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 6 one of DeAngelis, Niibe or Rutherford.1 All of these claims depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 are based on the same erroneous finding made in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child discussed supra. As such, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child and further in view of one of DeAngelis, Niibe or Rutherford. CONCLUSION The combination of Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child does not include a patterned conductive layer on at least one side of a conductive fabric. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-19, 21, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and DeAngelis is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Niibe is reversed. 1 We note that claims 2, 11, 15, 17-19 and 21 are also rejected over the combination of just Gurevich, Kleshchik and Child. Appeal 2010-008758 Application 11/389,941 7 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurevich, Kleshchik, Child and Rutherford is reversed. REVERSED Klh