Ex Parte Papel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

10446747 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EVAN T. PAPEL
____________

Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT,
and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Evan T. Papel (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a sock with an interior pocket,
and to a method for forming a sock with an interior pocket.
Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.

1. A sock with an interior pocket, comprising a foot
portion connected with and extending from a body portion
having a body portion orientation, the body portion having an
interior, an exterior, a cuff with a cuff opening formed
substantially perpendicular to the body portion orientation,
and a pocket opening cut and formed horizontally through the
body portion such that a majority of the pocket opening lies
substantially parallel to the cuff opening, and where an
enclosure apparatus is affixed with the pocket opening, and
where a pocket is attached with the enclosure apparatus and
hangs in the interior of the body portion, with the pocket having
an interior volume in communication with the pocket opening,
whereby when the sock is worn by a wearer, the pocket is in the
interior of the body portion and rests between the sock wearer's
leg and the body portion such that the interior volume is
accessible from an exterior of the sock via the pocket opening,
and whereby the enclosure apparatus may be operated to
selectively permit access to the interior volume of the pocket
from the exterior of the sock.

17. A method of forming a sock with an interior
pocket, comprising the acts of cutting a horizontal pocket
opening in a body portion of the sock, where the body portion
includes a cuff with a cuff opening and a majority of the
horizontal pocket opening is cut such that the majority of the
horizontal pocket opening lies substantially parallel to the cuff
opening; attaching an enclosure apparatus with the pocket
opening; attaching a first end of a continuous piece of fabric
with the enclosure apparatus; attaching an opposite end of a
continuous piece of fabric with the enclosure apparatus,
forming two sides of the continuous piece of fabric; and
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

3
attaching each of the two sides of the continuous piece of fabric
unto themselves, whereby all of the attaching shall occur on the
interior of the body portion, such that the pocket that has been
created rests between a sock wearer's leg and the body portion
of the sock.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Burn US 4,005,494 Feb. 1, 1977
DeWan US 4,404,689 Sep. 20, 1983
Rubin US 4,445,233 May 1, 1984
Williger
Busker
US 4,961,235
US 5,878,441
Oct. 9, 1990
Mar. 9, 1999

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-24, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeWan in view of Burn.
Claims 9, 16, 25, and 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over DeWan in view of Burn and further in view of
Busker.
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rubin view of Williger.

Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

4
OPINION

Claims1-8, 10-15, 17-24 and 26-28 – Obviousness
DeWan in view of Burn
Looking first to independent claim 11, it is the Examiner’s position
that DeWan discloses all of the subject matter recited in this claim except
that the pocket is not in a sock. Ans. 4-5. However, the Examiner has
pointed out that “Burn teaches a sock article having a pocket located with an
opening parallel to the cuff of the sock” (Ans. 5) and, although not stated in
the rejection in so many words, apparently has concluded that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have installed the DeWan
pocket in a sock. This interpretation is confirmed in the Appellant’s
arguments on pages 7-10 of the Reply Brief.
DeWan is directed to a flexible “container” which is attached to an
article of “wearing apparel” (Spec. Col. 1, ll. 33-34). The “container”
described in DeWan is considered by the Examiner to be a “pocket” (see, for
example, Ans. 4-5), which terminology has also been used by the Appellant
in describing the DeWan invention (see, for example, Reply Br. 6, l. 21). A
first stated purpose of the DeWan pocket is to store the article of wearing
apparel to which it is attached when that article is stuffed into it. DeWan
Col. 4, ll. 41-68. A second purpose is that the pocket have a predetermined
shape that is three dimensional so it represents a reproduction of a desired
item such as a commercial or promotional item when the article is contained
therein. Spec. Col. 2, l. 67 – Col. 3, l. 58.

1 The Appellant has chosen not to separately argue the patentability of
claims 2-6 and 10-13, based on DeWan and Burn, or Rubin and Williger.
Thus the rejection of these claims will stand or fall with each of the
rejections of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

5
The Appellant has argued in rebuttal to the Examiner’s conclusion
that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to combine the
references because “the utility of the DeWan patent and the Burn patent are
completely dissimilar” (Reply Br. 7, ll. 18-19), and that “a skilled artisan in
the field of the present application would unlikely view the DeWan patent
and the Burn patent as analogous or combinable art in that they provide two
entirely different functions” (Reply Br. 8, ll. 8-10). The Appellant also
argues that the proposed modification would render the inventions of
DeWan and Burn unsatisfactory for their intended purposes and would
change their principles of operation. Reply Br. 9, l. 7 – 10, l. 25.
We agree with the Examiner that DeWan discloses a garment meeting
the terms of claim 1, except that the garment is not a sock. Ans. 3-4.
However, while DeWan focuses on installing a pocket in garments such as a
jacket wherein the garment can be folded into the pocket for carrying (Figs.
1-7), the reference includes teachings that are more broad, including the
statements that “[t]he flexible container [pocket] is adaptable to various
types of garments including jackets, pants, swimsuits, hats, shirts and the
like” (Col. 2, ll. 11-13; emphasis added); “[t]he flexible container is a pocket
within the garment with the closure being a zipper” (Col. 2, ll. 55-57); and
the zipper is double-sided “for operating as a conventional zipper when the
pocket is used conventionally and for closing the garment within the flexible
container when the pocket is inside out” (Col. 2, ll. 58-65, emphasis added).
DeWan further states that the pocket will maintain its shape but “it will
collapse, due to its flexibility, toward the garment 10 under the influence of
forces which are exerted when the garment is put on by the wearer so that it
does not interfere with the wearing of the garment” (Col. 4, ll. 35-40). The
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

6
above-quoted passages would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art that the DeWan pocket can be installed in virtually any garment, that it
will fold flat against the wearer’s body when it is not in use, and that it can
be used as a conventional pocket to accommodate items normally carried in
pockets, in addition to its use as a container for the garment itself.
Burn teaches that it was known in the art to provide in a sock a pocket
having an opening oriented perpendicularly to the body portion of the sock,
that is, horizontally. We regard a sock as being a “garment” falling within
the breadth of the DeWan disclosure in that, like the DeWan hat (which has
a pocket), a sock covers an appendage of the wearer’s body. Therefore,
while we have carefully considered all of the arguments set forth by the
Appellant, in view of the breadth of DeWan’s teachings and the fact that
placing a pocket in a sock was known in the art as exemplified by Burn,
these arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install a
pocket of the type disclosed by DeWan in a sock.
Claims 7 and 14 are dependent from claim 1 and require that the
pocket opening have a width no greater than 60% of the circumference of
the body portion of the sock. It is clear from Figure 4 of the Burn drawings
that the pocket opening encompasses less than 60% of the circumference of
the body of the sock, which would have suggested this element to one of
ordinary skill in the art. The Appellant has provided no argument which
persuades us that such would not be the case.
Claims 8 and 15 call for the sock to be an “ankle” sock. The
Examiner is of the view that the sock disclosed by Burn is an ankle sock.
Ans. 6. The Appellant argues that such is not the case, and that it would not
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

7
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a pocket in an
ankle sock “because creating such an apparatus is not easy (because the
pocket rests on or around the user’s ankles).” Reply Br. 17. The Appellant
has submitted Exhibit F, which by way of drawings illustrates the various
lengths of socks, as confirming that the Burn sock is, by virtue of the portion
of the user’s leg that it covers, a “crew sock” and not an “ankle sock.”
Reply Br. 16. Be that as it may, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s
“not easy” argument, unaccompanied by further explanation, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would lack skill sufficient to install the DeWan
pocket in the “ankle sock” just because it is shorter than a “crew sock.”
Independent method claim 17 also stands rejected as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of DeWan and Burn. The
claimed method includes the steps of
attaching a first end of a continuous piece of fabric with the
enclosure apparatus; attaching an opposite end of a continuous
piece of fabric with the enclosure apparatus, forming two sides
of the continuous piece of fabric; and attaching each of the two
sides of the continuous piece of fabric unto themselves.
The Examiner has concluded that these steps are taught by DeWan, citing to
Figure 3. Ans. 6. The substance of the Appellant’s response to this
conclusion is that the DeWan pocket is formed of four pieces of material and
not a continuous piece of material, and therefore does not teach the steps
required in the claim. Reply Br. 17-18.
Critical to the DeWan invention is providing the pocket with a
“distinctive shape of an object such as a commercial or promotional item or
subject matter” (Spec. Col. 4, ll. 8-10). In furtherance of this objective,
DeWan constructs the pocket “of four forming pieces of material 24 having
a plurality of seams 26 to create the three-dimensional shape as heretofore
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

8
mentioned.” Spec. Col. 4, ll. 21-23. It is evident from this description and
from the showing in Figures 3 and 5-7 that the DeWan pocket is not formed
from “a continuous piece of fabric” having a “first end” and an “opposite
end” attached to the enclosure apparatus, and “two sides” that are attached
“unto themselves,” as is required by claim 17. Thus, even considering the
teaching in Burn, the method for forming a pocket that is set forth in claim
17 is not taught by the two references, and this rejection of claim 17 is
reversed along with, it follows, the like rejection of dependent claims 18-24
and 26-28.
Claims 9, 16, 25 and 29-32 – Obviousness
DeWan in view of Burn and Busker
Claims 9 and 16, which depend from claim 1, stand rejected as being
unpatentable over DeWan and Burn, taken further in view of Busker, which
is cited for its teaching of closing a pocket with a water-impervious seal
(Col. 1, ll. 9-12; Col. 3, ll. 31-44; Figs. 1 and 4). The Appellant has
provided no argument which persuades us that Busker falls short of
suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of providing a
waterproof closure to a pocket in order to protect the contents of the pocket.
Method claims 25 and 29-32 depend from claim 17, the rejection of
which on the basis of DeWan and Burn has been reversed. Busker fails to
overcome the deficiencies noted above in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent method claim 17, and therefore this rejection of dependent
method claims 25 and 29-32 also is reversed.

Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

9
Claims 1-32 – Obviousness
Rubin in view of Williger

This rejection was set forth for the first time on page 3 of the
Examiner’s Answer and Appellant has elected to maintain this appeal. See
Ans. 20; Reply Br. 3; 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b). The Examiner is of the opinion
that all of the subject matter recited in claims 1-32 would have been obvious
in view of the teachings of Rubin, except that the opening in the sock for the
Rubin pocket is oriented parallel to the body portion orientation of the sock
(vertically), rather than perpendicularly (horizontally), as is recited in
independent claims 1 and 172. However, the Examiner has concluded that,
on the basis of the showing in Williger, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to orient the pocket opening of Rubin to the
horizontal. The details of the Examiner’s application of the teachings of
these two references to each of the claims is provided on pages 8-12 of the
Answer.
The crux of the Appellant’s arguments in response to this rejection is
that the teachings of Rubin and Williger cannot be combined since Rubin
“expressly claims” only a vertical orientation of the opening in the pocket
because, as Rubin states, in any other configuration the stitching may
interfere with the normal stretching of the sock, may lead to tearing of the
sock, and may cause deformation of the sock at the stitching. Reply Br. 21,
referencing Rubin Col. 1, ll. 20-26 and Col. 2, ll. 53-55. In view of these
teachings of Rubin, the Appellant concludes that “[b]ecause the Rubin patent

2 Since the Appellant has not provided arguments regarding the rejection of
dependent claims 18-22, 25-27, and 29-31 based on Rubin and Williger, the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims will stand or fall with the rejection of
claim 17.
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

10
expressly states that any other pocket configuration other than vertical is not
desirable, the Rubin patent provides no motivation to create a sock with a
horizontally-positioned pocket opening, and, in fact, teaches against such a
feature” (Reply Br. 21; emphasis in the original), and goes on to state that
“any alternative configuration would render the invention unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose and change the principle of operation of the invention”
(Reply Br. 21; emphasis in the original). The Appellant also argues that
Rubin fails to disclose that the sock is an ankle sock. Reply Br. 23-25.
A study of other portions of the Rubin patent would, in our view, have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Rubin’s teachings are not
limited to a vertical pocket opening. In independent claim 1 Rubin recites a
hosiery piece comprising a tubular leg portion having “a slit opening formed
in the leg portion extending a first length therealong,” and follows in
dependent claim 2 with the additional limitation that the slit opening “has a
direction of extension along the leg portion.” Claim 4, which depends from
claim 2 via claim 3, adds the further provision that the slit opening “extends
up and down the leg portion.” Thus, the specific limitation to a vertical slit
opening is not established until stated in the third claim of the series
emanating from claim 1. From our perspective, this indicates Rubin
considers that the orientation of the slit opening in claims 1 and 2 is not
required to be vertical. Support for this is found in Rubin’s Specification,
where it is stated in the summary of the invention that the slit opening
formed in the leg portion “typically extends vertically.” Col. 1, ll. 47-49;
emphasis added.
Furthermore, among the objectives of the Rubin invention is attaching
the pocket to the sock without being esthetically displeasing or interfering
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

11
with stretching of the hosiery as it is worn or weakening the hosiery at the
fastening (Col. 1, ll. 38-42), and to provide a pocket that is large enough to
hold sizable objects (Col. 1, ll. 36-37) and flexible enough to accommodate
different dimensioned objects (Col. 3, ll. 4-5). Both of these objectives are
accomplished by attaching the pocket to the sock only at flap portions of the
sock folded inwardly at the opening, which eliminates stitches passing
through the rest of the body of the sock (Col. 2, l. 64 to Col. 3, l. 35) as well
as allowing the pocket freedom to open and to accommodate various shapes
of articles (Col. 1, ll. 56-57; Col. 3, ll. 19-28).
We recognize that in describing a preferred embodiment of the
invention Rubin utilizes a vertical orientation “because the sock is stretched
circumferentially when it is donned, and is usually is not stretched
vertically.” Col. 2, ll. 53-55. However, while the vertical orientation might
be preferred, it is our opinion that the Rubin invention is not limited to this
orientation in view of Rubin’s statement in the summary of the invention
that the slit opening only “typically” extends vertically, Rubin’s failure to
limit the slit opening to a vertical orientation in independent claim 1 or in
eight of the nine dependent claims, and the stated advantages obtained by
attaching the pocket to the sock that are set forth in Rubin, which in our
view would have been recognized by the artisan as being applicable to
horizontal as well as vertical orientations of the pocket opening.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art, also having
knowledge of the teachings of Williger, would have found it obvious to
reorient the pocket disclosed by Rubin so that the pocket opening is

Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

12
horizontal. We have carefully considered all of the arguments set forth by
the Appellant on pages 20-22 of the Reply Brief, but find them
unpersuasive.
The Appellant further has argued that since Rubin discloses a vertical
opening slit, it fails to disclose or teach that the slit has a horizontal width of
no more than 60% of the circumference of the body portion of the sock.
Reply Br. 23. However, this limitation clearly is taught by Williger, which
has been combined with Rubin.
The Appellant also has taken issue with the rejection of claims 8 and
15, which contain the limitation that the sock is an ankle sock, on the basis
that this would result in a pocket too small to hold items mentioned by
Rubin, such as a passport (Reply Br. 24), and that to manufacture such a
pocket is “not easy” (Reply br. 25). However, such a pocket nevertheless
would be large enough to carry others of the items mentioned in Rubin, such
as keys and cash (Col. 1, ll. 58-60). This being the case, this argument has
failed to persuade us that the Examiner erred in determining that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install the modified
Rubin pocket in an ankle sock. As discussed below, we do not find
persuasive evidence before us to support the conclusion that manufacturing
such a pocket would be beyond the skill that should be accorded to the
artisan.
Independent claim 17 is directed to a method for forming a sock with
an interior pocket. The Appellant has here set forth the same arguments as
were offered against combining of the teachings of Rubin and Williger in the
rejection of claim 1, which is directed to the sock itself (Reply Br. 25-27),
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

13
and we find them not to be persuasive here for the same reasons as were
expressed above with regard to claim 1.
The Appellant additionally has argued that in Rubin “the pocket is
attached with the enclosure apparatus, not the sock body.” Reply Br. 27;
emphasis in the original. With regard to this argument, we first note from
Rubin’s Figures 3-5 that, except for the orientation of the pocket opening,
the Rubin pocket construction appears to be substantially identical to that
recited by the Appellant in claim 17 and illustrated in the Appellant’s
Figures 3 and 6. In particular, Rubin discloses an “enclosure apparatus” in
the form of a zipper 20 which comprises a pair of tracks 22 and 24. Fig. 5;
Col. 2, ll. 59-60. Rubin’s pocket 30 is formed from an outward facing wall
32 and an opposite inward facing wall 34, which are connected together at
marginal walls 36 and 37. Figs. 3-5; Col. 2, ll. 65-68. A slit opening 40 is
cut in outward wall 32 which is the same length and is aligned with slit
opening 18 in the sock, and this slit opening is defined by a pair of folded
out flaps 45 which are stitched at 46 and 48 to the respective outer edges 49
of the two tracks 22 and 24 of zipper 20 (Col. 3, ll. 19-26). The folded out
flaps that define slit opening 18 in sock 10 also are attached to tracks 22 and
24 of zipper 20. See Fig. 3. Therefore, the steps taught in Rubin to attach
the pocket to the sock are as required in the Appellant’s claim 17, namely,
“attaching an enclosure apparatus with the pocket opening” in the body
portion of the sock, “attaching a first end of a continuous piece of fabric with
the enclosure apparatus,” and “attaching an opposite end of a continuous
piece of fabric with the enclosure apparatus,” “whereby all of the attaching
shall occur on the interior of the body portion” of the sock. See Col. 2, l. 48-
Col. 3, l. 34.
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

14
Additionally, the Appellant has challenged the Examiner’s reasoning
that a horizontal opening would provide for a more secure pocket when the
zipper is opened because the items will have a less tendency to fall out of the
opening due to gravity. Reply Br. 27; source in the record not identified.
However, we note that the Appellant states in the Specification that “[a]n
inherent problem” in the Rubin vertical opening pocket “is that the bottom
of the pocket is near the bottom of the opening, which may result in the
inadvertent loss of the pocket’s contents” (Page 1, ll. 16-20; emphasis
added), which is the position taken by the Examiner. It is our view that a
problem in a prior art device that is considered to be “inherent” would be
evident to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would provide motivation to
solve the problem.
The rejection of claims 23 and 28, which contain the limitation
regarding the less than 60% width of the opening in the sock, is argued by
the Appellant (Reply Br. 28). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for the
same reasons as applied above with regard to the like rejection of claims 7
and 14.
Likewise, Appellant’s arugments (Reply Br. 23) regarding the
rejection of claims 24 and 32, which limit the claim to an ankle sock, are
unpersuasive for the same reasons as applied above with regard to claims 8
and 15.
Secondary Factors Supporting Non-Obviousness
In addition to the arguments directed to the correctness of combining
the subject matter disclosed in the two rejections, the Appellant has offered a
number of secondary reasons why the rejections should be reversed. Reply
Br. 10-16. It is our duty to reconsider the issue of obviousness anew,
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

15
carefully weighing the evidence for obviousness with respect to the evidence
against obviousness. See e.g., In re Eli Lily & Co., 902 F.2d, 943, 945 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
The first of these secondary factors is that “improvements on crowded
art are patentable.” Reply Br. 10. Here the Appellant sets forth five
“meticulous steps” which must be performed to manufacture a sock like that
of the Appellant’s invention. Reply Br. 11-12. The conclusion the
Appellant draws from these is that “[i]t is no simple task to create a
functional and desirable sock with a horizontally positioned pocket opening
(and enclosure apparatus) that includes a pocket which is formed by
attaching two opposing ends of a continuous piece of fabric to the pocket
opening.” Reply Br. 12. We find this argument not to be persuasive with
regard to product claims 1-16 because none of these claims recite that the
pocket comprises this structure. As for method claims 17-32, it is our view
that the method disclosed by Rubin meets the terms of the Appellant’s
claims, except for the orientation of the pocket opening, and that this
constitutes compelling evidence that performing the operations to construct
the pocket are within the skill of an artisan in that field. Moreover, the
Appellant has offered no persuasive evidence or reasoning in support of the
conclusion that performing the “meticulous steps” in the manufacture of a
sock having a pocket with a horizontal opening would be so different from
forming a pocket with a vertical opening as to place it outside the skill level
of the artisan. “[M]uch talent may be employed and much money expended
in changes and methods of construction involving only mechanical skill,
which do not constitute invention.” In re Lawson, 36 F.2d 525, 528 (CCPA
1929).
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

16
The second argument is that a product embodying the present
invention has enjoyed “a tremendous amount of commercial success.”
Reply Br. 12. Four declarations have been presented by the Appellant in
support of the foregoing statement. One of the declarations is from the
inventor in his capacity as CEO of Zip It Gear, Inc., which apparently is
currently distributing the socks that are the subject of the claims on appeal.
It alleges that the claimed sock has had commercial success, as attested to by
three declarations from the owners of stores that sell the socks, all of which
state exactly the same information. The bedrock measure of “commercial
success” is the number of sales of the product in the marketplace, and while
each of the three supporting declarations state that “[t]he unique features of
Zip It Gear’s socks have generated sales to establish the socks as a
commercial success,” conspicuously absent from the declarations are sales
figures in support of this conclusion. It therefore is our opinion that the
evidence provided by the declarations regarding commercial success cannot
be accorded significant weight.
The Appellant asserts in his own declaration that it “appears as if
Curves International copied the product and is currently selling the product
under its own name.” Evidence has been offered that the Appellant
disclosed the sock to Curves International (Exhibit A), that this letter was
received by Curves International (Exhibit B), and that this sock was placed
on the market by Curves International (Exhibit C and Artifact A). However,
although copying by others is most often presented during litigation, more
than the mere fact of copying is necessary to make that action significant
because copying may be attributable to other factors such as lack of concern
for patent property or contempt for the patentee’s ability to enforce the
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

17
patent (Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1028 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)). Moreover, the Appellant has not presented evidence that
copying by Curves International occurred after that company had tried over
a substantial length of time to design a product similar to the claimed
invention but failed and then copied the Appellant’s invention, which has
been held to be persuasive evidence of nonobviousness (Dow Chem. Co. v.
Am. Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). The Appellant
also advances the argument that the claimed invention provided a solution to
a long-felt but unsolved need. In this regard, note that on pages 1 and 2 of
his Specification the Appellant has made of record thirteen patents directed
to providing an alternative to carrying personal items in pants pockets or
purses by placing a pocket in a hosiery article. These include Burn, which
was cited by the Examiner in the first rejection of the claims, and Rubin and
Williger, which were cited by the Examiner in the second rejection. The
Appellant has not articulated the long-felt but unsolved need that is met by
the claimed invention but was not solved by the thirteen cited patents.
In light of the totality of the evidence before us, we agree with the
Examiner that the evidence of obviousness outweighs the evidence against.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-15 as being unpatentable over
DeWan in view of Burn is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 16 as being unpatentable over DeWan in
view of Burn and Busker is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 17-24 and 26-28 as being unpatentable over
DeWan in view of Burn is reversed.
Appeal 2009-014320
Application 10/446,747

18
The rejection of claims 25 and 29-32 as being unpatentable over
DeWan in view of Burn and Busker is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-32 as being unpatentable over Rubin view of
Williger is affirmed.
A rejection of each of claims 1-32 having been affirmed, the decision
of the Examiner is affirmed.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh