Ex Parte Eng et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 2019

14806132 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/806,132 07/22/2015 AikHweeEng 99653 7590 06/18/2019 Moser Taboada/ Ansell Limited 1030 Broad Street Suite 203 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. A0318 7276 EXAMINER DAVIS, ZACHARY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1783 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2019 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): docketing@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AIK HWEE ENG, THANABALAN THANNIMALAI, ALBERT KHOR, LOK SI TANG, THI HAO PHAM, DAVID M. LUCAS, ANTHONY LOPEZ, and CHOY YUEN CHAK Appeal2018-007954 Application 14/806, 132 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-11, and 14--19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 We cite to the Substitute Specification ("Spec.") filed October 9, 2015; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated November 22, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed March 23, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated June 28, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated August 1, 2018. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Ansell Limited, which is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-007954 Application 14/806,132 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to gloves for detecting a hydrophilic fluid breach through an inner or outer glove component. Spec. ,r,r 1, 4. Claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal-reads: 1. A combination glove for detecting breaches of hydrophilic or aqueous fluid comprising: an top elastomer layer with an inner surface, namely the inner-top surface, the top elastomer layer being translucent or transparent; an bottom elastomer layer with an outer surface, namely the outer-bottom surface, the bottom elastomer layer being darker than the top elastomer layer; and a space or seam between the layers in which the hydrophilic or aqueous fluid can flow, wherein to either the inner-top or the outer-bottom surface has been applied a hydrophilicity promoting composition comprising a hydrophilicity-promoting effective amount of polysiloxane compound having a pendent one to two oxypolymers, wherein the oxy-polymer is (1) a poly- oxyalkylene polymer that is predominantly oxyethylene or (2) a polyvinyl alcohol, wherein the hydrophilicity promoting composition enhances the spreading in the space or seam of any of the hydrophilic or aqueous fluid that breaches the top elastomer or bottom layer, wherein the elastomer of the inner-top or the outer-bottom surface with hydrophilicity promoting composition is polyisoprene, wherein the 5 second water contact angle on the surface with hydrophilicity promoting composition is less than 30 Â°. App. Br. 24--25 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). 2 Appeal2018-007954 Application 14/806,132 REJECTI0NS 3 Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Venables, 4 Wang, 5 and Mizusaki. 6 The remaining claims stand rejected over Venables, Wang, and Mizusaki, as applied against claim 1, and further in view of one or more additional references identified in the Answer. OPINION Claim 1 requires a space or seam provided between top and bottom layers of a combination glove, and a particular polysiloxane compound applied within the space or seam to enhance spreading of any hydrophilic or aqueous fluid that breaches the top or bottom glove layer. A dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Mizusaki provides a reason to apply the claimed polysiloxane between the inner and outer layers of Venables' disclosed glove. Compare Ans. 5-6 ("It would have been obvious ... to modify the surface treatment of Venables to include the surface treatment taught by Mizusaki because it provides for a non-sticky surface (paragraph 0010) and does not cause foaming when coated onto a rubber article (paragraph 0030).") with, App. Br. 8 ("[T]here is no disclosure or motivation from Mizusaki to use this (B) component to promote hydrophilicity."). See also Reply Br. 3 ("[A] non- 3 A statement of the Examiner's standing rejections is set forth in the Answer. Ans. 3-15. Previously imposed rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 were withdrawn. Id. at 15. 4 US 2012/0090074 Al, published April 19, 2012. 5 US 6,828,387 B2, issued December 7, 2004. 6 US 2013/0095257 Al, published April 18, 2013. 3 Appeal2018-007954 Application 14/806,132 sticky surface is not equivalent to a hydrophilic surface. Nor is foaming an issue relevant to the Venables invention."). There is no dispute that Venables discloses a combination glove that includes a hydrophilic coating applied between inner and outer layers of the glove for the purpose of enhancing detection of a fluid breach. See Spec. 1 ( citing Venables); App. Br. 5 ("Venables ... seeks to build off the basic idea of the two glove puncture indicating system."); Venables ,r 21 ( teaching addition of "hydrophilic coatings" to enhance wetting properties of gloves to enhance detection of fluid between inner and outer glove layers). The Examiner acknowledges that Venables does not teach use of the recited polysiloxane compound as a surface treatment between the inner and outer glove layers. Ans. 4. Mizusaki addresses a different problem-namely, that a "rubber glove often sticks to hands and fingers as well as to other parts of the rubber glove." Mizusaki ,r 4. Mizusaki discloses a surfactant composition for use in coating rubber gloves to reduce stickiness of the outer glove surface. Mizusaki ,r,r 8, 10. According to Mizusaki, the disclosed composition advantageously may be coated without foaming. Id. ,r 2. Thus, Mizusaki's teaching of using a polysiloxane-containing composition to reduce stickiness and avoid foaming regards only the outer surfaces of the glove. The Examiner does not present any finding that Mizusaki' s composition would have been recognized as suitable for use as a hydrophilic coating between inner and outer glove layers to enhance spreading of breaching fluids. Nor does the Examiner state any other reason why one skilled in the art would have applied Mizusaki' s composition between inner and outer glove layers. 4 Appeal2018-007954 Application 14/806,132 For those reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner does not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. Because the rejection of each of the remaining claims is premised on the same error identified in connection with claim 1, the remaining rejections also are not sustained. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-11, and 14--19 is reversed. REVERSED 5