Ex Parte Hughes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 201713170992 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation