Ex Parte Grilliot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 2017

11796883 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2017)

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. 11/796,883 04/30/2007 William L. Grilliot H28476-MOR03334P02480US 5062 93730 7590 09/18/2017 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER HADEN, SALLY CLINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2017 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): ksanderson@woodphillips.com patentservices-us @ honey well, com docketing @ woodphillips .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM L. GRILLIOT and MARY I. GRILLIOT Appeal 2015-0051831 Application 11/796,8832 Technology Center 3700 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing of the decision entered June 26, 2017 (“Decision”), which affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 13—18, and 20—26 as obvious over Son3 alone or Son in view of Kleinert.4 1 We reference herein Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 16, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 6, 2015), and Request for Rehearing (“Request,” filed Aug. 24, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 5, 2015) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 16, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Morning Pride Manufacturing, L.L.C. and Honeywell International, L.L.C. Appeal Br. 1. 3 Son, US 7,841,024 B2, iss. Nov. 30, 2010. 4 Kleinert, US 2002/0013961 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2002. Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 Appellants contend that our Decision “ignores the express prohibitions in the case law and the MPEP” that a proposed modification should not change the principle of operation of the prior art or that a proposed combination of references cannot require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the primary reference. Request 1 (citing MPEP § 2143.01 VI)(emphasis omitted). Appellants also indicate that we overlooked or misapprehended their arguments related to this case law. Id. at 1—3. We find no point of law or fact that we overlooked or misapprehended in arriving at our Decision. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, although Appellants first indicate that we ignored the case law and the MPEP as noted above, i.e. with respect to the substantial reconstruction and redesign of elements in the primary reference, Appellants do not further explain how we ignored such case law and the MPEP. See Request 1—3. In fact, our Decision acknowledges Appellants’ arguments in this regard, and we found that Appellants have not adequately shown “why the proposed modification [of] Son would require a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son’s critical parts.” Decision at 4. Furthermore, we found that the proposed modification would not “defeat any purpose of Son’s glove, including providing a glove that has ‘a more natural finger curvature.’” Id. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ assertion, we see no indication that our Decision ignores this case law and, in fact, provides articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 2 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 Next, Appellants indicate that we overlooked or misapprehended their arguments regarding why the proposed modification to Son would require a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son’s critical parts. Request 1—2. In our decision we found that “[bjeyond the additional manufacturing step of forming seams between two materials, as would be required by the proposed modification to Son, Appellants do not point to any specific reason why the proposed modification would require a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son’s critical parts.” Decision 4. Thus, we specifically acknowledged that at least one additional manufacturing step5 would be required with the proposed modification of Son, but we found that Appellants’ do not explain why this additional manufacturing step amounts to a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son. Additionally, Appellants argue that the proposed modification of Son would be impractical. Request 3. However, our Decision specifically acknowledged this argument and we found that Appellants did not adequately support this contention. Thus, each of Appellants’ arguments raised in their Request were previously raised and considering in arriving at our Decision. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any point of law or fact related to those arguments. 5 We find, consistent with our Decision, that the only additional manufacturing step required in the proposed modification of Son would be the formation of seams between the different materials to be used in creating the back side of the glove. See Decision 4. To the extent the cutting of additional parts from different materials may be considered an additional manufacturing step, such additional step would not alter the conclusion that a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son is not required by the proposed modification. 3 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 CONCLUSION We have carefully reviewed the original Decision in light of Appellants’ request, but we find no point of law or fact that we overlooked or misapprehended in arriving at our decision. Therefore, Appellants’ request for rehearing is denied. DENIED 4