Ex Parte Hughes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2017

13170992 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 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.
13/170,992 06/28/2011 Griffith W. Hughes Cl 092/20008 4768
3000 7590
CAESAR RIVISE, PC
7 Penn Center, 12th Floor
1635 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
EXAMINER
HADEN, SALLY CLINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2017 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):
patents @ crbcp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRIFFITH W. HUGHES and JON C. HUGHES
Appeal 2015-003060
Application 13/170,992
Technology Center 3700
Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a plaited glove. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cut resistant glove, said glove having an inner surface and
an outer surface, wherein the inner surface is adapted for
Appeal 2015-003060
Application 13/170,992
contacting a hand of a user, and the outer surface is visible while
the user is wearing the glove, the glove comprising:
(a) a two layer knit fabric of a plaited construction
including a first layer on the inner surface and a second layer on
the outer surface;
(b) the outer surface constructed from non-stretchable, cut
resistant yam, wherein the yam has a plurality of filaments that
are generally parallel to one another, wherein the plurality of
filaments roll on one another for increased cut resistance;
(c) the inner surface constmcted from a stretchable, elastic
yam.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Andrews
Hughes
Tremblay-Lutter
Chen
US 5,965,223
US 7,185,481 B2
US 2003/0066120 A1
US 2006/0026737 A1
Oct. 12, 1999
Mar. 6, 2007
Apr. 10, 2003
Feb. 9, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hughes and Tremblay-Lutter.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hughes, Tremblay-Lutter, and Chen.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hughes, Tremblay-Lutter, and Andrews.
1 The inclusion of claims 2 and 3 in the heading to the rejection is believed
to be a typographical error as these claims are only addressed in the
subsequent rejections. Final Act. 2, 4—5.
2
Appeal 2015-003060
Application 13/170,992
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hughes discloses a cut-resistant glove
including the features of the claimed outer surface construction of element
(b). Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner then finds that Tremblay-Lutter teaches
a glove lining of the claimed construction of element (c). Id. at 3. Though
the Examiner does not initially address the claimed “plaited construction”
(see generally, id.), the Examiner later finds that “[pjlaiting is well known in
the art and is an obvious modification” (Advisory Act. 2). The Examiner
also later cites Tremblay-Lutter for disclosing plaiting and finds that
“[combining the Hughes outer surface with the Tremblay inner surface by
plaiting the surfaces together is an obvious modification that would result in
the claimed invention.” Answer 2—3 (citing Tremblay-Lutter 131).
Appellants admit “that plaited construction is well known in the prior
art,” but argue that “[i]t is the specific plaited construction ... as claimed,
that is novel and not obvious. Hughes, Tremblay and/or any of the prior art
of record do not teach the claims limitations, in combination.” Br. 4.
Appellants do not elaborate further.
The Examiner implicitly acknowledges that neither Hughes nor
Tremblay-Lutter teaches the glove of claim 1, but rather finds that the
claimed glove would be obvious in view of the teachings of these references.
Other than arguing that claim 1 is not taught by the prior art, Appellants
provide no explanation as to why it would not be obvious to combine the
Hughes knit pattern as the outer surface of a plaited glove with the inner
surface taught by Tremblay-Lutter as discussed and cited by the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2015-003060
Application 13/170,992
For this reason we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds “the stretchable, elastic yam
is of a color that contrasts with the a color of the non-stretchable, cut
resistant yam such that the elastic yam becomes more visible during wear of
the non-stretchable, cut resistant outer surface of the glove.”
The Examiner finds that “it is well known to provide layered gloves
with contrasting colors for each layer so that it can be easily determined
when the outer layer has been breached or otherwise compromised, as
disclosed ... by Chen.” Final Act. 4 (citing Chen 119).
Appellants argue that Chen “is directed to a disposable glove, not a
knitted glove.” Br. 5. The Examiner explains that “Chen [] is used in the
rejection only for the teaching of different colors for different layers of the
glove not for any other glove construction.” Answer 3.
Appellants then argue:
Other companies have used this constmction but with the nylon
on the outside and the filament on the inside so that they can get
adhesion of the coating to the texturized nylon. The yam of the
outer layer, as required by claim 1, is made from filaments. No
nylon has been added for adhesion purposes. This provides for
the present invention, as claimed, to get the maximum cut
protection by using pure cut resistant filament on the outer layer.
It has not been compromised with any added fibers.
Additionally, [t]he Examiner states that Chen merely teaches the
use of two different colors as an obvious modification. However,
the stmcture of the present invention is critical in that it is used
in a nonobvious manner when combining nonstretchable, cut
resistant yam with a stretchable yam in the manner claim[ed].
4
Appeal 2015-003060
Application 13/170,992
Br. 5.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 2.
Nothing in claim 2 prevents the inclusion of nylon or added fibers. Thus,
this “critical structure,” or lack of structure, is not claimed. Even if the
claim did exclude nylon or added fibers, this line of reasoning does not
differentiate the teachings of Chen, as the Examiner identifies Chen as
teaching contrasting color between layers of a glove. Final Act. 4.
For these reasons we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds “the filaments of the non-
stretchable, cut resistant yam include a dulling agent.” The Examiner finds
that Andrews teaches this limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Andrews teaches using the dulling agent inside
the glove, while the claim requires that the dulling agent be outside the
glove. Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated
by the Examiner. Andrew is only relied on for the teaching that yam
filaments with dulling agents are known, not for the location or placement of
the filament. See Final Act. 5; Answer 3. For this reason we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2015-003060
Application 13/170,992
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6