Ex Parte Xiangjing

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12959845 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/959,845 12/03/2010
73325 7590 09/02/2016
Matthew G, McKinney
Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A.
255 South Orange A venue
Suite 1401
Orlando, FL 32801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ma Xiangjing
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.
0121940 5936
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
mmckinney@addmg.com
creganoa@addmg.com
skemraj@addmg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MA XIANGJING
Appeal2014-008370
Application 12/959,845
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1 and 4--20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Greene (US 6,422,032 Bl, iss. July 23, 2002), Morris (US 5,490,396,
iss. Feb. 13, 1996), and Rilling (US 5,582,028, iss. Dec. 10, 1996). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-008370
Application 12/959,845
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to an expandable cooler bag. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An expandable cooler bag, the bag comprising:
a front panel;
a rear panel;
a plurality of pockets disposed on the front and rear panels,
wherein each pocket of the plurality of pockets is
configured to flex in at least three different directions along
the pocket's edges to conform to vertical curved surfaces of
contents of the bag;
a fluid coolant sealed within each pocket of the plurality of
pockets;
a pair of foldable side panels disposed on opposing sides of the
front panel, wherein the pair of foldable side panels each
having a longitudinal crease line to allow each side panel to
collapse and expand thereupon;
a bottom panel secured to a lower edge of each of the pair of
side panels, front and rear panels, to form a bag, wherein
the bottom panel is adapted to collapse and expand about a
bottom crease line.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1 and 4-15
Appellant argues claims 1 and 4-15 as a group. Appeal Br. 3-8. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that Greene discloses of the elements of claim 1
except for foldable side panels and a collapsible bottom panel. Final
Action 2. The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Morris
discloses foldable side and bottom panels with crease lines. Id. at 2-3. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Greene with
2
Appeal2014-008370
Application 12/959,845
foldable side panels and a collapsible bottom panel. Id. at 3. According to
the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
save space and for convenience. Id.
The Examiner also finds that Greene does not explicitly disclose that
each pocket is configured to flex in at least three different directions. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Rilling teaches the concept of each of a
plurality of pockets having different shapes and sizes. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Greene's pockets so as to assume
alternative sizes and shapes, e.g., a hexagon. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to keep
the cooling elements from coming into contact with the contents of the bag
and to provide better cooling. Id.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by arguing that the
applied art does not teach pockets that flex in at least three different
directions along a pocket edge so as to conform to the vertical curved
surfaces of contents of the bag. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant provides annotated
drawings of Appellant's Figure 1 and Greene's Figure 2. Id. As we
understand Appellant's argument, Appellant's hexagonal pockets are
bounded by three pairs of parallel edges, each pair pointing in a different
direction, whereas Greene's rectangular pockets are bounded by only two
pairs of parallel edges, each pair pointing in a direction that is perpendicular
to the other pair, for a total of only two different directions. Appellant
claims an advantage in the claimed configuration in that an improved
cooling effect is accomplished by increasing the contact surface of the
pocket with the contents. Id. at 6. Appellant attributes this improved
3
Appeal2014-008370
Application 12/959,845
surface contact and cooling effect to the claimed "three different directions"
created by Appellant's use of hexagonal pockets. Id.
With respect to the Examiner's finding that Rilling discloses
"different shapes and sizes," Appellant supplies an annotated drawing of
Rilling' s Figure 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues, based on the annotated
drawing, that Rilling only flexes in two directions. Id. Appellant
distinguishes between pockets that flex in three different directions and
pockets that assume different sizes and shapes. Id. at 7-8.
In response, the Examiner states that it is implicit in Greene, Morris,
and Rilling that each pocket is configured to flex in at least three different
directions along the pocket edges. Ans. 2. The Examiner states that
"Greene describes elastically deformable pockets." Id. In other words,
according to the Examiner, the pockets deform "along an X, Y, Z plane or
coordinate which is taken along the pocket edges once the pocket receives
an object." Id. The Examiner reasons that the material line permits
additional freedom in expanding and distorting the pockets' structure along
any three orthogonally intersecting axes to planarly curved configurations.
Id.
In response to Appellant's effort to distinguish between different
directions and different shapes, the Examiner observes that Appellant's
argument based on the annotated figures at page 4 of the Appeal Brief is
predicated on the association between a hexagonal shape and flexing in the
direction of the linear edges of the hexagonal shape. Ans. 4 ("Appellant
relied upon the shapes of the pockets to define the flexibility").
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
4
Appeal2014-008370
Application 12/959,845
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant does not define
whether a "direction" refers to orthogonal directions in a three dimensional
volume or whether "direction" refers to a direction on a planar surface, for
example, a compass rose is comprised of 360 degrees of directions, or four
cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West). Accordingly, Appellant
has not shown error in the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed
"directions" to include those in x, y, and z planes.
As we understand Appellant's argument, the problem addressed by
the application is wrapping a flexible, but initially planar surface around a
curved shape, such as a ball or a wine bottle. Consistent with the position
espoused by the Examiner, we discern no patentable distinction between the
ability of a rectangular pocket (Greene) and the ability of hexagonal pocket
(Appellant's Figure 1) to wrap around a curved surface in three or more
"directions," including in x, y, and z planes. See Ans. 5 ("The fact that the
shapes of pockets are rectangular does not prohibit Green or Rilling from
performing the three direction flexibility.").
To the extent that pockets having a particular geometric shape (e.g.,
triangle, pentagon, hexagon, octagon) assists the side of a cooling bag to
conform to the shape of a curved article in the bag, we agree with the
Examiner that Rilling provides sufficient disclosure such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Greene to
have pockets with a wide variety of shapes and sizes. See Rilling, col. 4,
5
Appeal2014-008370
Application 12/959,845
11. 8-10 ("[A Jlternative numbers of pockets as well as sizes and shapes are
possible for use in other enablements of this invention").
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1
and 4--15.
Unpatentability of Claims 16-20
Claim 16 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1. Claims App. Claims 17-20 depend, directly or indirectly,
therefrom. Id.
In traversing the rejection of claim 16, Appellant raises the same
argument with respect to flexing in at least three different direction along the
pocket edges that we fully considered and found unpersuasive with respect
to claim 1 and we find equally unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 8-9.
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claims 17-20 apart
from arguments raised in connection with claim 16. Id. at 9. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claims 16-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 4--20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6