Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2016

11820134 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111820,134 06/18/2007
71372 7590 04/05/2016
JEFFREY ff RODDY
525 ROY AL CREST DRIVE
RICHARDSON, TX 75081
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald Westerman Jones
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.
RWJ0002JHR 2174
EXAMINER
HELVEY, PETER N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2016 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 RONALD WESTERMAN JONES
Appeal2014-003280
Application 11/820, 1341
Technology Center 3700
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 3-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant,
The present invention is a sewn cloth storage bag with a series of
pockets formed by a unique and economic folding of fabric
panels directed primarily to the storage of low profile
containables such as plastic-ware lids associated with plastic
containers commonly used to store foodstuffs in the kitchen and
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ronald Westerman
Jones. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003280
Application 11/820, 134
includes an inner panel of [an] opaque[,] fabric[-]like material,
and an outer panel of a mesh-type material such as a nylon or
polyester mesh, folded against each other in such a way to form
multiple open top pockets, the formed inner pocket being opaque
while the formed outer pockets have a presenting side of mesh-
type material so that the contents of the outer pockets can be
easily discerned.
Spec. 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 3-7 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. A sewn cloth storage bag having sides, and a top and
bottom edge for the containment of plastic-ware lids and
similarly shaped items comprising:
a series of fabric panels, each panel folded back on itself
in a U-shape form forming a plurality of at least three open top
pockets, one in front of the other and one behind the other, said
panels being connected to one another by two straight vertical
se\vs along said sides of storage bag; and,
a flap formed from an outermost panel of a see-through
mesh fabric with a long edge and a two relatively shorter edges
which is deformed upwardly by a hand slid between the slap [sic]
and the remainder of the bag to permit access to said open-top
pockets, but otherwise resumes a closed sate [sic] occluding said
open mouth pockets to secure said storage bag contents when the
hand is withdrawn, with said shorter edges substantially attached
along their lengths to said sides of said storage bag by said two
vertical sews; and,
an uninterrupted passage between outermost pockets; and,
a grommet placed in a comer opposite the mouths of said
open-top pockets to optionally hang the storage bag in an
inverted position.
Appeal Br. 16.
2
Appeal2014-003280
Application 11/820, 134
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Patik2 in view of Brieske3 and Siegelman.4
DISCUSSION
Appellant's arguments address all claims on appeal as a single group.
See Appeal Br. 11-14. We select claim 1 as representative of the appealed
claims.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Patik discloses a
sewn cloth storage bag including a fabric panel folded upon itself in a U-
shape; two vertical sews connecting the sides of the panel; and a flap formed
from an outermost panel of see-through mesh fabric as claimed. Final
Action 2 (citing Patik Fig. 4). The Examiner acknowledges that Patik does
not disclose inner and outer panels forming inner and outer pockets with an
uninterrupted passage between outermost pockets or a grommet as claimed.
Id. at 2-3. The Examiner finds that Siegelman discloses an embodiment
with the claimed panel structure including an uninterrupted passage between
outermost pockets. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide this structure as taught by Siegelman in order to
carry auxiliary contents in the outer pocket and that applying this structure to
Patik's bag would have produced predictable results. Id. The Examiner also
finds that Brieske discloses including a grommet on a bag as claimed, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to include a grommet on the
proposed combined bag, as claimed, in order to hang it in an inverted storage
2 Patik, US 4,010,785, iss. Mar. 8, 1977.
3 Brieske, US 3,256,127, iss. June 14, 1966.
4 Siegelman, US 5,881,883, iss. Mar. 16, 1999.
3
Appeal2014-003280
Application 11/820, 134
position, as taught by Brieske, and to prevent the grommet from interfering
with the useful space in the pockets of the bag. Id. at 3--4.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. See
Final Action 2---6; Ans. 4--7. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of
error by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant first argues that the Examiner's rationale for combining
Patik and Siegelman is unsupported. Appeal Br. 12-13. Appellant asserts
that "there is no way that auxiliary contents may be 'carried' to the main
contents of the innermost compartment as the innermost compartment would
be separated and segregated from the contents held in the outermost pocket."
Id. at 13. This argument appears to rely on a mischaracterization of the
Examiner's position. Specifically, although the rejection stated that the
combination would have been obvious "in order to carry auxiliary contents
to the main contents of the innermost compartment" (Final Action 3), the
Examiner clarified the rationale as allowing the bag "to carry contents in
addition to the main contents of the innermost pocket" (Ans. 6). Thus, we
find Appellant's argument is not relevant to the actual rationale provided by
the Examiner. See also Reply Br. 2---6. Further, to the extent Appellant also
argues that the proposed combination would not result in a flap as claimed
(Appeal Br. 12), we disagree for the reasons provided by the Examiner (Ans.
5).
Appellant also asserts that Patik teaches a bag with a single cavity that
is designed to hold contents while being vigorously agitated as by a washing
machine. Appeal Br. 11. Based on this purpose, Appellant argues that Patik
teaches away from the claimed structure with additional pockets because it
4
Appeal2014-003280
Application 11/820, 134
would inhibit vigorous agitation of the bag contents. Id. at 13. Appellant
indicates that segregating the bag into multiple pockets is akin to
overstuffing the bag and reducing the effectiveness of the vigorous agitation
produced in a washing machine. Id. at 13-14. We are not persuaded. We
agree with the Examiner that there is no reason to assume a user will
overstuff the bag such that it cannot be vigorously agitated, regardless of
whether it has multiple pockets. See Ans. 6-7. Further, we disagree that
Patik teaches away from multiple pockets. We see no reason why a
segregated bag cannot be vigorously agitated as Patik discloses.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 3-7 fall with claim
1.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1
and 3-7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5