Ex Parte Honeycutt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

13897957 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
HCUTT-00110 8922
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/897,957 05/20/2013
28960 7590 08/09/2017
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP
162 N WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
Rob Honeycutt
08/09/2017 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 ROB HONEYCUTT1
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. App. Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Snik, LLC is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s
arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for
their respective details: the Final Action mailed February 11, 2015
(“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed June 30, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed November 18, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed January 6, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A headset cord holder comprises a body and a first
groove built into the body configured to receive and
releasably hold a headset cord. In some embodiments, the
first groove has a diameter less than or equal to
approximately 2mm. In further embodiments, the body is
integrally formed within the teeth of a zipper. In some
embodiments the body comprises one or more of rubber,
plastic and metal. In some embodiments, the body
comprises one or more of stamped metal and molded
metal. In further embodiments, the body comprises
molded plastic. In some embodiments, the body
comprises one or more additional grooves configured to
receive and releasably secure the headset cord.
Abstract.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Takeshima (US 4,562,621;
issued Jan. 7, 1986). Ans. 2.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Takeshima. Ans. 2.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Takeshima and Ohno (US 5,499,927; issued
Mar. 19, 1996). Ans. 2.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and
evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
I.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is
illustrative of appealed claims 1—8:
1. A headset cord holder comprising:
a. a plurality of zipper teeth each having a body; and
b. a first groove built into one or more of the bodies
configured to receive and releasably hold a cord, wherein the
groove is horizontally offset from a closest edge of a closest
portion of zipper tape relative to the groove.
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner interprets the claimed “groove[s] [] horizontally
offset from a closest edge of a closest portion of zipper tape” as
corresponding to either of Takeshima’s grooves 24. Final Act. 4.
These grooves 24, along with grooves 25, contain anchor threads 26,
27. Takeshima col. 3,11. 39-41. The Examiner finds that because
Takeshima discloses the stringer tape 11 is woven of a plurality of
warp threads 12 and a single weft thread 13 (see Takeshima col. 2,
11. 48—50), the edge of the stringer tape 11 “must be defined by the
area where both elements 12 and 13 are woven together”—not the
peripheral region where only looping weft thread 13 is present. Id.
at 2.
In relation to claims 1—8, Appellant asserts that Takeshima does
not teach a groove that is horizontally offset from a closest edge of a
closest portion of zipper tape relative to the groove. App. Br. 8. In
Appellant’s view, the edge of Takeshima’s stringer tape 11
corresponds to the looped edge of the weft thread 13, which is aligned
3
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
with the grooves 24, 25—not the boundary of the area where threads
12 and 13 are woven together. App. Br. 4—6, 8.
Issue
No dispute exists as to whether the edge of the looped weft
thread 13 is aligned with—as opposed to offset from—the grooves 24,
25. See generally Final Act.; see generally Ans. The question before
us, then, is whether the Examiner reasonably interpreted the edge of
Takeshima’s stringer tape 11 as being limited to the boundary where
threads 12 and 13 are woven together.
Analysis
Takeshima describes the weft thread 13 and stringer tape 11 as
follows:
As shown in FIGS. 2 to 4, the weft thread 13 of the
woven stringer tape 11 has a plurality of loops 29 disposed
along the longitudinal edge of the tape 11, each loop 29
encircling the guide cord 28, one of the first and second
connecting portions 16, 17, the connector threads 22, 23,
and the anchor threads 26, 27 between an adjacent pair of
the coupling elements 15, 15, thereby securing the
coupling elements 15 to the longitudinal tape edge.
Takeshima col. 3,11. 48—56 (emphasis added).
This passage of Takeshima expressly describes the looping
portion of the weft thread 13 both as being part of the stringer tape
and also as forming the longitudinal tape edge. That is, Takeshima
describes the grooves 25 as being aligned with the edge of the zipper
tape—not offset from the tape. We therefore do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 or of claims 3, 5, and 6,
which depend from claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
With respect to the two obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 2, 4, 7, and 8, the Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to modify Takeshima’s disclosure to satisfy the other
limitations set forth in the dependent claims—not the offset language
discussed above. Ans. 6—8. We, therefore, do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of these claims for the reasons set forth above
in relation to independent claim 1.
II.
Independent claims 9 and 17, reproduced below with added
emphasis, are illustrative of appealed claims 9—24:
9. A headset cord holder comprising:
a. a plurality of zipper teeth each having a body,
together forming at least a portion of a zipper; and
b. a first groove built into one or more of the
bodies configured to receive and releasably hold a cord;
wherein the first groove within each body is aligned
when the zipper teeth are adjacently aligned to form an
uninterrupted groove.
17. A headset cord holder comprising:
a. a plurality of zipper teeth each having a body;
and
b. a first groove built into one or more of the
bodies configured to receive and releasably hold a cord;
wherein the first groove within each body is aligned
when the zipper teeth are adjacently aligned to form an
uninterrupted groove, and the first groove within every
other body is aligned when the zipper teeth are unzipped.
5
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
Findings and Contentions
In relation to claims 9—24, the Examiner finds that “the zipper
of Takeshima clearly shows grooves being aligned when the zipper
teeth are zipped together and the grooves of every other body, forming
at least a portion of a zipper, are aligned [when] the zipper teeth are
unzipped.” Final Act. 4—5 (citing Takeshima col. 1,11. 12—21, which
sets forth elongate coupling element strip 14).
The Examiner adopts a broad interpretation of the claim term
“uninterrupted groove”:
the groove can be considered uninterrupted because the
cord can be held continuously in at least two adjacent
coupling elements and “uninterrupted” can be defined as
“not broken, discontinued or hindered” which, when
considered [in] the context of the zipper, is considered to
be met by the prior art. Applicant’s “bodies” may be in
contact with each other, but the groove is still formed by
discrete bodies [that] have a transitional area between the
bodies. If, as applicant is claiming, such an arrangement
can be considered “uninterrupted[,]” then it is reasonable
to maintain that the prior art similarly teaches an
“uninterrupted” groove with slightly larger transitional
areas between the bodies.
Id. at 5.
As disclosed above, we understand the Examiner to be basing
the rejection of claims 9 and 17 on the following two interpretations:
First, “uninterrupted grooves,” as claimed, include all groove-toothed
zippers, regardless of whether such a zipper, when closed, has any
degree of offset between the grooves of opposing strips’ teeth because
even offset grooves, as opposed to aligned grooves, can be said to be
intercommunicated by miniscule gaps or spaces that exist between the
6
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
opposing strips’ zippered teeth. Second, because Appellant describes
grooves as being uninterrupted when a cord is run through the spaced
teeth of one strip of an open zipper (see FIG. 19D), the claim
language only requires having one strip’s tooth grooves aligned—not
both strips tooth grooves.
Appellant contends “Takeshima does not teach wherein the
first groove within each body is aligned when the zipper teeth are
zipped together to form an uninterrupted groove.” App. Br. 8.
Appellant urges that the claims set forth that “[i]t is the groove that is
uninterrupted, not the zipper teeth.” Id. at 7.
Analysis
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are
given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
Specification (In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004))—not the broadest conceivable interpretation
divorced from any consideration of the Specification.
In the present case, Appellant’s Specification, when read as a
whole, renders it reasonably clear that the recited “when the zipper
teeth are adjacently aligned to form an uninterrupted groove” means
that the overall path of the groove is uninterrupted. The presence of
additional gaps between adjacent teeth, as well as the directions in
which these gaps extend, is immaterial to the overall path of the
groove, itself. That is, claims 9 and 17 reasonably require that the
groove passage extends continuously without taking circuitous
detours between adjacent teeth.
7
Appeal 2016-004011
Application 13/897,957
Takeshima does not appear to disclose such a groove
orientation. Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 9 and 17.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims
or of claims 11, 13, 14, 19, 21, and 22, which depend from claims 9
and 17.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, and 24, the Examiner
does rely on the additional reasoning and evidence to cure the
deficiency of the anticipation rejection explained above. Accordingly,
we likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejections of these claims
for the reasons set forth above in relation to claims 9 and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
8