Ex Parte Tuma

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 2017

13261201 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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. 13/261,201 03/05/2012 Jan Tuma 58995 6905 513 7590 06/01/2017 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20005-1503 EXAMINER KRAMER, DEAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): ddalecki@wenderoth.com eoa@ wenderoth. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN TUMA Appeal 2015-007219 Application 13/261,201 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13—31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 3, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 30, 2015), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 24, 2014), and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 24, 2015) and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Aug. 14, 2014). 2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is “Gottlieb Binder GmbH & Co. KG of Holzgerlingen, Germany.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-007219 Application 13/261,201 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant’s “invention relates to a support device for improving the haptics and/or gripping impression for hands when touching surfaces that are especially smooth and/or delicate.” Spec. 1. Claim 13 is the only independent claim on appeal, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below: 13. A support device for improving haptics and/or gripping impressions of humanoid and android hands, comprising: an active surface interacting with parts of a hand for executing movements and having stem-shaped projections extending from a backing with widen head parts on ends of said projections remote from said backing, each said projection having a convex part turning into a concave part in a vicinity of a foot part of each said projection in a transition area into said backing in longitudinal section and in a direction proceeding from said head part to said foot part of each said projection; and free end faces of said head parts at least partially improving adhesion of at least parts of a hand or hand projection to engaged surfaces that are at least one of especially smooth and delicate when touched, said free end faces being formed to provide van der Waals forces between said free end faces and the engaged surfaces. Appeal Br., Claims App. THE REJECTION Claims 13—31 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gaiser (4,270,228, iss. June 2, 1981), Tuma (US 2007/0063375 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2007), and Ausen (WO 03/059108 A2, pub. July 24, 2003). Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal 2015-007219 Application 13/261,201 ANALYSIS The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 is in error because, in pertinent part, the Examiner does not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to support a prima facie case of obviousness. See Reply Br. 3. We agree. Even were we to agree with the Examiner’s findings that Gaiser discloses a glove with adhesive pads, Tuma discloses the adhesive pads comprising adhesion elements based on van-der-Waals force and with head and stem configurations, and Ausen discloses an adhesive element member with stem and head portions and shaped with a convex middle portion turning into a concave portion near its foot (see Final Act. 2—3, Ans. 4), the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the art.3 We do not see how, as determined by the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the high friction material on Gaiser’s glove out of adhesion elements similar to those disclosed in the Tuma publication with a convex/concave stem, similar to the Figure 11 embodiment in the [Ausen] publication, as an effective means of producing adhesion through van der Waals forces between the resulting adhesion elements and object being handled. The resulting structure would be more durable and sturdy due to its wide convex middle. Ans. 4. Gaiser discloses a glove to overcome the gripping problems associated with perspiration or oil. See Gaiser col. 1,11. 6—13. Tuma 3 Although the Examiner notes that the Specification does not disclose “the purpose of criticality of such a design [of the convex structure]” (Ans. 3), the Examiner does not discuss the relevance of such a notice, i.e., how that statement has any bearing on the rejection before us. 3 Appeal 2015-007219 Application 13/261,201 discloses a process for creating adhesion to provide good adhesion in an economically feasible way. See Tuma Tflf 8—10. Ausen discloses molded hook fasteners with thin, flexible backing to allow for “narrower hook profiles at commercially acceptable production speeds.” Ausen p. 2,1. 13. The Examiner has not adequately explained, and we do not see, how the convex structure of Ausen as depicted at Figure 11 would result in a more durable and sturdy projection as taught by Gaiser and modified by Tuma. The Examiner merely speculates that the shape of Ausen’s hooks would provide that result. See Reply Br. 3. Thus, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner and do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 13, and also of dependent claims 14—31. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. REVERSED 4