James Collie

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 7, 2021

2020005082 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2021)

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.
15/019,996 02/10/2016 James E. Collie 050306-1080 4030
24504 7590 05/07/2021
THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
ATTEL, NINA KAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2021 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES E. COLLIE

Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 10–18, and 21–30. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as James E.
Collie. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses embodiments related to “portable, high
capacity cooler[s] that can be rolled up or folded for storage with the use of a
water-tight valve.” Spec. ¶ 6.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A pliable, collapsible, inflatable, thermally insulative
container, comprising:
a body portion having a top end, a bottom end, a flexible,
waterproof interior liner, and a flexible, waterproof exterior
shell, wherein the interior liner and the exterior shell are sealed
together at the top end of the body portion forming an interior
insulative space therebetween and a storage space that is lined by
the interior liner and having an opening at the top end of the body
portion;
a flexible insulative material disposed within the interior
insulative space and being sealed therein;
a roll down quick release closure fixed to the body portion
at the top end for closing the opening and the storage space;
at least one manually operated twist valve disposed
through and secured to the exterior shell by a welded seam to
control air flow into and out of the interior insulative space
between the interior liner and the exterior shell;
wherein the container is substantially waterproof;
wherein the twist valve comprises a body and a cap, the
cap comprising at least one aperture and configured to be
manually rotatable relative to the body, the body comprising at
least one air shaft, a first shoulder welded to the exterior shell, a
second shoulder within which the air shaft opens into the interior
insulative space, and a disc piece spaced apart from the second
shoulder to create a clearance between the air shaft and the
flexible insulative material;
Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996

3
wherein the twist valve comprises a substantially air and
water tight seal when the cap is manually rotated relative to the
body in a first rotational direction to a closed position where the
at least one aperture is obstructed; and
wherein the twist valve is configured to allow air flow into
the interior insulative space between the waterproof exterior shell
and the waterproof interior liner to inflate the container and
protect and insulate any article stored therein when the cap is
manually rotated relative to the body in a second rotational
direction to an open position where the at least one aperture is
unobstructed.
Appeal Br. 20–21.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 10–13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mogil2 in view of Langston,3
Andreasson,4 and Naidu.5
2. The Examiner rejects claims 14, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mogil in view of Langston, Andreasson, Naidu, and
Nattrass.6
3. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mogil in view of Langston, Andreasson, Naidu, Hydorn,7 and
Buell.8

2 Mogil et al., US 2014/0248003 A1, pub. Sept. 4, 2014.
3 Langston et al., US 2013/0105040 A1, pub. May 2, 2013.
4 Andreasson, US 3,785,395, iss. Jan. 15, 1974.
5 Naidu et al., US 2007/0053617 A1, pub. Mar. 8, 2007.
6 Nattrass, US 5,415,614, iss. May 16, 1995.
7 Hydorn, US 4,127,155, iss. Nov. 28, 1978.
8 Buell, III, US 2014/0254956 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2014.
Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996

4
4. The Examiner rejects claims 24, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mogil in view of Langston, Andreasson, Naidu, and
Abbate.9
DISCUSSION
Each of the independent claims recites a twist valve with a body and
cap that is configured to be manually rotated to open and closed positions
such that in the closed position an aperture in the cap is obstructed, thereby
creating an air and water tight seal. We are persuaded of error in the
rejection of the independent claims because the Examiner has not
established that the art of record teaches or renders obvious such a twist
valve.
The Examiner relies on Langston to teach a twist valve including a
body 20 and a cap 30 with apertures 36 that includes positions wherein the
apertures of the cap are obstructed and unobstructed. See Final Act. 4–5
(citing Langston ¶¶ 49–62, Figs. 1–9B). Additionally, the Examiner
explains Langston teaches a locked open position in which “insert
apertures (36) are in fluid communication with an interior of the bag and
thus, are unobstructed” and an unlocked closed position in which “the insert
apertures (36) are blocked from communication with the interior of the bag
via contact between the o-ring and the chamfer and thus, are obstructed in
the unlocked closed position.” Ans. 11–12.
However, the Examiner fails to show that any aperture in Langston’s
element 30 is ever obstructed or that the twist valve is configured to create
an air and water tight seal when the cap is rotated to a position where an

9 Abbate et al., US 2009/0282617 A1, pub. Nov. 19, 2009.
Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996

5
aperture is obstructed. The Examiner appears to find that Langston teaches
apertures that are obstructed when there is no fluid communication with the
interior of the bag and that the apertures are unobstructed when there is fluid
communication. However, we agree with Appellant that it appears that
Langston’s apertures are unobstructed regardless of position and regardless
of whether there is fluid communication to the interior of the bag. See
Appeal Br. 15. Langston discloses that the body 20 and insert 30 are
arranged with a spring therebetween when the insert is placed in the body.
See Langston Fig. 8; ¶ 56. Thus, there is always space between the body and
the insert which seems to prevent the apertures from being obstructed in any
position, and the Examiner does not adequately explain why one of ordinary
skill in the art would consider these apertures to be obstructed in any
position.
Further, to the extent the Examiner finds that the apertures are
obstructed in Langston when there is no fluid communication with the
interior, we disagree. The claim recites creating “a substantially air and
water tight seal when the cap is manually rotated relative to the body in a
first rotational direction to a closed position where the at least one aperture is
obstructed,” which requires that rotating the valve obstructs an aperture and
it is the obstruction of the aperture that creates the air and water tight seal
when the cap is rotated. However, Langston clearly discloses that the seal is
created by the interaction of O-ring 40 and chamfer 72. Langston does not
appear to disclose that the apertures in the insert have anything to do with
creating the air and water tight seal of the valve. Further, Langston discloses
that twisting the cap between the open and closed, or unlocked and locked
positions, does not, by itself, allow air flow into the valve. Rather, Langston
Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996

6
discloses that rotating the cap is not required to open the valve and is only
used to lock it in the open position, i.e., Langston discloses that, in the
unlocked position, pressure is required to urge the valve into the open
position and the valve is already open when the insert is twisted to the
locked position. See Langston ¶¶ 59, 60. Thus, Langston does not disclose
that rotating the cap as identified by the Examiner would create or break a
substantially air and water tight seal or that rotating this element results in
any aperture becoming obstructed or unobstructed, as required by the claims.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner erred in
finding that Langston teaches a twist valve including a cap with apertures as
required by each of the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 18. For the same reasons, and because the
Examiner does not rely on any art of record or further reasoning that would
cure the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims, we also do not
sustain the rejections of claims 10, 11, 13–17, and 21–30.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 10–18, and 21–30.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 10–13, 17,
18, 22, 23,
25, 26, 28,
30
103 Mogil Langston,
Andreasson,
Naidu
1, 10–13,
17, 18,
22, 23,
25, 26,
28, 30
14, 15, 21 103 Mogil Langston,
Andreasson,
Naidu, Nattrass
14, 15,
21
16 103 Mogil Langston,
Andreasson,
16
Appeal 2020-005082
Application 15/019,996

7
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Naidu, Hydorn,
Buell
24, 27, 29 103 Mogil Langston,
Andreasson,
Naidu, Abbate
24, 27,
29
Overall
Outcome
1, 10–18,
21–30

REVERSED