Ex Parte Leonard

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2013

10474878 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/474,878 11/24/2003 Philip Noel Leonard 7741 60333 7590 04/26/2013 EDWIN D. SCHINDLER 4 HIGH OAKS COURT P.O. BOX 4259 HUNTINGTON, NY 11743-0777 EXAMINER SYKES, ALTREV C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2013 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 PHILIP NOEL LEONARD ____________ Appeal 2011-010823 Application 10/474,878 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 40-45, 56-61 and 64-67. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 40 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: Appeal 2011-010823 Application 10/474,878 2 40. A fabric article formed of a plurality of textile threads, comprising: a plurality of integrated circuits encapsulated in one or more individual textile threads, together forming at least a portion of said textile threads, said plurality of integrated circuits including at least one microprocessor and least one memory element; and, means for interconnecting individual integrated circuits of said plurality of integrated circuits for permitting said individual integrated circuits to intercommunicate with one another for forming a signal processing system. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Jacobsen 5,767,824 Jun. 16, 1998 Daniel 4,234,907 Nov. 18, 1980 Complete Textile Glossary, Celanese Acetate LLC., Copyright 2001. pgs. 1- 5. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/array. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 40-45, 56-61, 64-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Jacobsen as evidenced by Daniel. 2. Claims 40-45 and 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Daniel. Appeal 2011-010823 Application 10/474,878 3 ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in determining that Jacobsen discloses a plurality of integrated circuits “encapsulated in” one or more individual textile threads as recited in the claims? We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE. It is the Examiner’s position that: . . . Jacobsen discloses signaling between the substrates (through integrated circuits) can be effected in a variety of ways even without the substrates being in contact with one another, and also that signals can be transmitted along, i.e., inside of, the substrates 130 and 132 via the use of light. (See Col 7, lines 35- 40). Therefore, examiner notes that the circuits are anticipated to be encapsulated in the substrate fiber optic strand 130. It is Appellant’s position that Jacobsen pertains to formation on the surface of the strand of various integrated circuit components. Br. 10, 12- 13. In further support of this position, Appellant also refers to several parts of the disclosure of Jacobsen as identified on pages 2-3 of the Reply Brief. We agree with Appellant’s position for the following reasons. The Examiner relies upon col. 7, ll. 35-40 of Jacobsen in support of his interpretation that this reference discloses integrate circuits encapsulated in the fiber optic strand. However, the transmission of signals via the use of light inside of the substrates does not necessarily require encapsulated integrated circuits. Light can be transmitted through a hollow strand, for example. On the other hand, Appellants have pointed to multiple disclosures indicating that the integrated circuits are in fact formed on the surface of the strands and not encapsulated therein. Appeal 2011-010823 Application 10/474,878 4 In view of the above, we therefore reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse Rejection 2 because the secondary reference of Daniel does not cure this deficiency of Jacobsen. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION Each rejection is reversed. REVERSED tc