Ex Parte Gellis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 2016

12577273 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/577,273 10/12/2009 96056 7590 Florek & Endres PLLC 1156 A venue of the Americas Suite 600 New York, NY 10036 06/22/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Gellis 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. 1545-041B 3913 EXAMINER MORAN, KATHERINE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2016 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 DAVID GELLIS Appeal2014-000910 Application 12/577,273 Technology Center 3700 Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 3, 6, 7, 11-13, 15, 16, 21-33 and 35-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2014-000910 Application 12/577,273 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a utility glove. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A utility glove having an exterior and an interior, a glove front corresponding to at least a portion of the palm side of the hand and a glove back corresponding to at least a portion of the back of the hand, said utility glove comprising a three dimensional molded portion formed of an elastomeric material bonded to a fabric, the fabric having an interior corresponding to the interior of the glove and an exterior to which the elastomeric material is bonded, with the elastomeric material of the molded portion integrally formed on the exterior of the glove, said molded portion having: a. a thumb portion comprising a cap for covering a tip of the thumb about the entire circumference of the tip of the thumb; b. four finger portions each comprising a cap for covering a tip of the finger about the entire circumference of the tip of the finger; c. a knuckle portion for covering at least a portion of the glove back over a plurality of finger knuckles on the back of a main body of the hand where the fingers meet the main body of the hand;and d. a palm having a middle and edges, the palm formed in a pre- curved configuration with the middle of the palm set in from the edges of the palm to form a concave shape on the exterior of the glove from the edges to the middle of the palm, wherein the molded portion extends continuously from the palm to the caps of each of the thumb portion and finger portions on at least a portion of the glove front. 2 Appeal2014-000910 Application 12/577,273 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandusky (U.S. 6,065,155) and Steinberg (U.S. 2,907 ,047). II. Claims 1 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend (U.S. 4,371,988) and Steinberg. III. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandusky, Steinberg, and Andrews (U.S. 5,598,582). IV. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandusky, Steinberg and Tillotson (U.S. 2,120,722). V. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandusky, Steinberg and Taira (U.S. 6,928,658). VI. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandusky, Steinberg, and Wisenburg (U.S. 2,913,729). VII. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandusky, Steinberg, and Jaeger (U.S. 7,100,212). VIII. Claims 21-23, 28, 31, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Berend. IX. Claims 24, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend and Douglas (U.S. 1,664,542). X. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend and Steinberg. XI. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend and Andrews. XII. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend and Tillotson. 3 Appeal2014-000910 Application 12/577,273 Xlll. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend and Taira. XIV. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berend and Schroeder (U.S. 4,094,014). OPINION The dispositive issue regarding rejections I-VII and X insofar as rejection X pertains to claim 26, is the presence or absence of a "palm formed in a pre-curved configuration with the middle of the palm set in from the edges of the palm to form a concave shape on the exterior of the glove from the edges to the middle of the palm" in Steinberg. Final Act. 3; App. Br. 4; Ans. 15. The fact that Steinberg's glove is described as being "longitudinally arcuate, especially through the hand and finger sections 12 and 18 thereof, with the concavity on the inner palm side 14 of the glove" does not establish that the palm of Steinberg's glove itself must exhibit the recited concavity. The body portion of the glove may be arcuate without being concave at every portion of the body, in particular the palm. The body portion may also exhibit concavity on the palm side without exhibiting concavity on the palm itself. Neither the drawings of Steinberg nor the associated description conclusively establish the presence of concavity as recited in claims 1 and 26. Accordingly rejections I-VII and X insofar as rejection X pertains to claim 26 cannot be sustained on the basis set forth by the Examiner. Turning to claim 21, the disputed limitation is, "wherein the molded portion is formed to entirely surround one or more openings comprising an area of fabric without elastomeric material." App. Br. 6-9. The Examiner 4 Appeal2014-000910 Application 12/577,273 considers "an opening at the end of the [Berend] glove for receiving the hand" as the recited opening. Final Act. 8, Ans. 16. However, the second outer layer 3 in Berend, which is regarded by the Examiner as the recited "molded portion," does not "entirely surround" the opening at the end of the glove as required by claim 21. App. Br. 7; Berend Figs. 1, 2. In fact, the second outer layer 3 is not even present near the opening at the end of the glove, so it is unclear why the Examiner believes the second outer layer in any way surrounds the opening at the end of the glove. Figure 3 is a cross- sectional view taken along line III-III, which is spaced from the opening. Furthermore, the opening at the end of the glove is formed by inner lining 1 and first inner layer 2, collectively regarded by the Examiner as the recited "fabric." Claim 21 calls for the openings to comprise fabric as opposed to the fabric only surrounding, or defining the boundary of, the opening, i.e., the fabric is an element of the opening as opposed to vice versa. App. Br. 7. We therefore agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that claim 21 is anticipated by Berend and the Examiner has not accounted for this deficiency in the obviousness rejections relying on the same teachings of Berend. Thus, we cannot sustain rejections VIII, IX, XI-XIV and X insofar as rejection X pertains to claim 27 on the basis set forth by the Examiner. DECISION The Examiner's rejections are reversed. REVERSED 5