Ex Parte Watson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

13650691 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 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.
13/650,691 10/12/2012 Stone Joseph Watson STON-0001-U01 1028
87084 7590 05/17/2017
GTC Law Group PC & Affiliates
c/o CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
THROOP, MYLES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2017 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):
j sammartin @gtclawgroup.com
gtcdocketing@cpaglobal.com
lhohn @ gtclawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT JOSEPH WATSON
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A sound-isolating pillow comprising:
a head support portion that is shaped to cradle the back and
sides of a head of a person; and
a sound-isolating portion disposed relative to the head support
portion to facilitate shielding at least the ears of the person from
ambient sound,
wherein the head support portion and the sound-isolating
portion are integrated into a one-piece pillow.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 7—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Riopel (US 2011/0235832 Al, pub. Sept. 29, 2011).
Claims 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riopel and Nam (US 2013/0113262 Al, pub. May 9,
2013).
Claims 3—5, 12, 14, 15, and 17—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riopel and Stotler (US 4,783,865, iss.
Nov. 15, 1988).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Riopel, Stotler, and Nam.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riopel, Stotler, and Reitzel (US 6,668,407 Bl, iss. Dec.
30, 2003).
2
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7—9 anticipated by Riopel
The Examiner found that Riopel discloses a sound-isolating pillow of
claim 1 including a head support portion (central portion 230) that is shaped
to cradle the back and sides of a person’s head, and a sound-isolating portion
(left extension 234) that is integrated relative to the head support portion.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner interpreted the term “cradle” to mean “to hold
gently or protectively.” Ans. 2. The Examiner reasoned that Riopel’s pillow
has the ability to “cradle the back and sides of a head of a person” because it
holds a user’s head gently and inherently would protect a user’s head. Id.
Appellant argues that Riopel’s headrest 200 pillow is not “shaped to
cradle the back and sides” of a person’s head but rather is designed to “leave
a space between the head of a user and the internal walls of the left 234
and right 232 extensions” as shown in Figure 4B. Appeal Br. 7—8 (quoting
Riopel 1 50). Appellant argues that these teachings of Riopel contradict the
Examiner’s finding that Riopel’s pillow is shaped to cradle the sides of a
person’s head or “hold gently and protectively.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant
also argues that the Examiner admits that Riopel does not teach “a shape
suitable for loosely conforming to sides and top of a human head” in claim
12, and this finding shows that Riopel is not “shaped to cradle the back and
sides of a head of a person” in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner’s finding that Riopel discloses a sound-isolating pillow
with a head support portion shaped to cradle the back and sides of a person’s
head (Final Act. 3) is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. The
Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the
Specification.
3
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
Appellant discloses pillow 100 as having a hollow portion 104 for
creating a cradle to support a resting person’s head in Figure 1. Spec. 123.
Pillow 100 also includes a curvilinear upper surface 210 to cradle the top of
a person’s head and at least the sides of a person’s head, while bottom panel
204 includes resting surface 208 for resting the back of a person’s head as
shown in Figure 2. See id. Tflf 23—25. Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
Figure 1 depicts a top view of sound-isolating pillow 100. Id. 123.
Figure 2 is a front perspective view of pillow 100. Id. 125. Appellant also
discloses that top curvilinear surface 210 “forms a shape suitable for loosely
conforming to the sides and top of a human head.” Id. 124. Head-cradling
region 104 may be sized to accommodate a reclining child or adult. Id. 123.
Riopel does not disclose a pillow “shaped to cradle the back and sides
of a head of a person” as recited in claim 1. Riopel discloses a headrest with
loudspeakers arranged to reproduce a home theater environment similar to a
movie theater. Riopel 2, 3, 21. Pillow 200 includes central section 230 to
support a user’s head 202. Id. Tffl 49, 62, Figs. 4A, 4B. To recreate a home
theater surround sound environment, speakers are supported in left and right
extensions 232, 234 so that they “leave a space between the head of the user
and the internal walls of the left 234 and right 232 extensions,” as shown in
Figures 4A and 4B, which are reproduced below. Id. Tffl 50, 62.
4
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
24 A
FIG. 4A
234
Figure 4A shows user head 202 between right and left extensions 232,
234. Id. 48-49. The spaced relationship creates a home theater sound.
Id. 1121, 52—54. Only subwoofer 204 on back panel 230 contacts user’s
head 202 in order to convey vibrations emitted by subwoofer 204. Id. 1 55.
Riopel’s pillow 200 is not “shaped to cradle the back and sides of a
head of a person” as recited in claim 1. Back panel 230 cradles the back of a
person’s head {id. 149), but right and left extensions 232, 234 do not cradle
the sides of a person’s head. They support speakers 205, 207, 208, 210, 212,
214 in a spaced relationship to a user’s head 202. The Examiner finds that
Riopel lacks “a head cradling surface,” “a head cradling region,” and “a
shape suitable for loosely conforming to sides and top of a human head.”
Final Act. 6. Nor has the Examiner explained how Riopel’s pillow holds the
sides of a user’s head gently. See Ans. 2.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 7—9.
Claims 2, 10, and 11
as unpatentable over Riopel and Nam
Independent claim 10 recites a method of reducing transmission of
ambient sound with a pillow that supports a back of a person’s head and has
a noise reducing portion fitting to the sides and top of a person’s head to
make intimate contact with the person’s ears. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
5
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
The Examiner found that Riopel teaches the claimed method wherein
the noise reducing surround portion makes intimate contact with at least the
person’s ears and also determined that it would have been obvious to change
the shape of Riopel’s pillow to a similar shape as Nam’s pillow to contact a
user’s ears and optimize the comfort of the pillow. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that Riopel optimizes the user’s aural experience by
spacing the sides and top of the pillow away from the user’s head to provide
an ambiophonic sound experience. Appeal Br. 13—15. Thus, Appellant
argues that it would not have been obvious to change the shape of Riopel’s
pillow to contact a user’s ears. Id. at 16. Appellant also argues that Nam
does not contact a user’s ears as evidenced in Figure 6 of Nam. Id. at 15—16.
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Riopel’s pillow to contact the
user’s ears is not supported by rational underpinning because Riopel teaches
to maintain a space between a user’s head 202 and side extensions 232, 234,
as discussed above. Even if Nam teaches “intimate contact” with a user’s
ears (contrary to what is shown in Figure 6 of Nam), a skilled artisan would
not have been motivated to modify Riopel in this manner because it would
undermine the home theater experience that Riopel seeks to provide.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 and its dependent
claim 11. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 because Nam does
not cure the deficiencies of Riopel for claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claims 3—5, 12, 14, 15, and 17—20
as unpatentable over Riopel and Stotler
Independent claim 12 recites a pillow and head cradling surface that
“forms a shape suitable for loosely conforming to sides and top of a human
head.” Appeal Br. 23—24 (Claims App.).
6
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
The Examiner found that Riopel teaches this feature. Final Act. 5—6.
The Examiner also found that Riopel does not teach a pillow shape with “a
head cradling surface,” “a head cradling region,” or “a shape suitable for
loosely conforming to sides and top of a human head.” Id. at 6. However,
the Examiner determined it would have been an obvious design choice to
shape Riopel’s pillow this way to optimize comfort because Stotler teaches a
u-shaped “nestling barrier” that reads on these limitations. Id. at 6.
The Examiner’s reasoning is not supported by rational underpinning
in view of Riopel’s desire to provide a theater-like sound system rather than
an ambient sound isolation portion as claimed. Appeal Br. 17—18. A skilled
artisan would not have been motivated to conform Riopel’s headrest loosely
to the sides or top of a user’s head, as claimed, because Riopel spaces sides
232, 234 away from a person’s head to improve sound quality as discussed
above. Id. at 19; see also Riopel 1 50. Because the spacing provides a home
entertainment environment functionality, it would not have been an obvious
design choice to conform the sides and top loosely to a user’s head even if
Stotler taught such a design.1 Appeal Br. 19—20. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12 or its dependent claims 14, 15, and 17—20.
We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3—5 because Stotler
does not cure the deficiencies of Riopel for claim 1 from which claims 3—5
depend.
1 Stotler teaches a u-shaped, pillow-like “nestling barrier” that receives the
head of a sleeping infant snugly. Stotler, 1:5—52, Fig. 1. The barrier 14 is
shown to conform loosely to the top of an infant’s head but does not provide
support to the back or the sides of the infant’s head, as recited in claim 12.
7
Appeal 2015-006747
Application 13/650,691
Claim 13 as unpatentable
over Riopel, Stotler, and Nam
The Examiner relied on Nam to teach a memory foam as recited in
claim 13, which depends from claim 12. Final Act. 7. Because Nam does
not cure the deficiencies of Riopel and Stotler as to claim 12, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 13.
Claims 6 and 16 as unpatentable
over Riopel, Stotler, and Reitzel
The Examiner’s reliance on Reitzel to teach features of claims 6 and
16 does not overcome the deficiencies of Riopel and Stotler as to claims 1
and 12 from which these claims depend, respectively. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 16.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
8