Ex Parte Grady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 2018

14170783 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/170,783 02/03/2014 26201 7590 09/12/2018 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) P.O BOX 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James T. Grady 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. 05918-0535002 1045 EXAMINER LAVINDER, JACK W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/12/2018 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES T. GRADY, PETER IANNAZZI, THOMAS O BRIEN, CLINTON DOWD, and ANDREW COLLINS Appeal2017-001642 Application 14/170,783 Technology Center 3600 Before: STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 20-22, 28, 29, 31, and 32. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2017-001642 Application 14/170,783 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 20. A touch fastener product, comprising: a flexible substrate having a surface with a characteristic that varies across the surface, the surface comprising both a first region and a second region adjacent the first region, the surface characteristic varying to a greater degree within the second region than within the first region; and an array of fastening projections extending from a resin layer, the resin layer having an edge disposed within, and adjacent an exposed portion of, the first region of the substrate surface. THE REJECTIONS Claims 20-22, 28, 29, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(b) as being anticipated by Tachauer et al. (US 2005/0280175 Al; published Dec. 22, 2005). Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of Tachauer and Curro et al. (US 7,682,686 B2; issued Mar. 23, 2010). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner "relies solely on the illustration provided by Figure 4 of [Tachauer] to support the erroneous assertion that 'Tachauer discloses the claimed touch fastener including ... a flexible substrate having a characteristic varying to a greater degree within the second region th[ a ]n within the first region."' Appeal Br. 3--4 ( emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, Tachauer' s Figure 4 does not provide 2 Appeal2017-001642 Application 14/170,783 adequate detail to "show the relative features the rejection relies upon." Reply Br. 2. We disagree with Appellants. As explained by the Examiner, Tachauer discloses a touch fastener made of resin applied to a portion of a substrate (the claimed "first area"), with other areas of substrate having no resin (the claimed "second area"). Ans. 2-3; see Appeal Br. 3 (noting that Tachauer discloses resin applied to a substrate; citing Tachauer ,r,r 1, 4, 16, 45, 57, 75). The Examiner explains, and we agree, that Tachauer discloses applying resin to a portion of the first area of a substrate, thereby disclosing a characteristic (porosity) varying to a greater degree within the second region than within the first, as claimed. Ans. 2. Consistent with the Examiner's findings, Appellants' Specification states that "the varying surface characteristic may be porosity," among other things (Spec. 8: 15), and the Specification explains that applying resin to a substrate fills pores in the substrate (see, e.g., Spec. 13:13-22). Compare, e.g., Tachauer,r,r 16 ( describing a substrate of sheet-form material that is porous), 78 ( stating that "[d]ue to the porosity of sheet-form material," molten resin can be applied onto and through the sheet-form material). Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner does not rely solely on Tachauer's Figure 4; at minimum, the Examiner's references to "resin layer 115" and "substrate layer 40" (Ans. 2), which are not labeled in the figure, plainly reference not only Figure 4, but also the related descriptions of Figure 4. Notably, the Appeal Brief itself cites many of the relevant disclosures in Tachauer, including paragraphs describing Tachauer's characteristics of resin and substrate. See Appeal Br. 3 ( citing, e.g., Tachauer ,r,r 1, 4, 16, 45, 57, 7 5). Accordingly, reading claim 20 in light of Appellants' Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Tachauer's 3 Appeal2017-001642 Application 14/170,783 disclosures of resin applied to a porous substrate disclose each limitation of claim 20, including the disputed limitation. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20. Regarding dependent claims 21, 22, 28, 29, 31, and 32, Appellants rely on the arguments advanced for claim 20, and we sustain the Examiner's rejections of those claims for the same reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 20-22, 28, 29, 31, and 32. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4