Milliken & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 2021

2020005500 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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. 15/212,350 07/18/2016 Franklin S. Love 6923A 2205 25280 7590 11/03/2021 Legal Department (M-495) P.O. Box 1926 Spartanburg, SC 29304 EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/03/2021 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): patents@milliken.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANKLIN S. LOVE, SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, VENKATKRISHNA RAGHAVENDRAN, BRANDON T. ROBERTS, PADMAKUMAR PUTHILLATH, DALE S. KITCHEN, and TY G. DAWSON ____________ Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(a). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Milliken & Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 2 The invention relates to “a washable multi-component magnetic floor mat.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, illustrates the invention: 1. A multi-component floor mat comprising: (a) A textile component comprising (i) a first layer of tufted pile carpet formed by tufting face yarns through a primary backing layer, wherein the face yarns are dyed, printed, or combinations thereof, and (ii) a second layer of vulcanized rubber material that contains magnetic particles; (b) A base component comprised of (i) vulcanized rubber that contains magnetic particles or (ii) vulcanized rubber having a magnetic coating applied thereto; and wherein the textile component and the base component are releasably attachable to one another via magnetic attraction. Appellant requests review of the following rejections2 from the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated September 17, 2019: I. claims 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18–21, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Nagahama (US 5,524,317, issued June 11, 1996); II. claims 12, 17, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nagahama; and III. claims 1–7 and 9–23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nagahama and Kobayashi (US 2004/0013849 A1, published January 22, 2004). Appellant present arguments only for independent claim 1 with respect to Rejections I and III. See generally Appeal Br. Appellant does not 2 The Examiner withdrew the double patenting rejection in view of an amendment in copending Application No. 15/212,361. Ans. 8. Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 3 present separate arguments for any of the remaining rejected claims. Id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all grounds of rejection based on the arguments presented for the patentability of claim 1. OPINION Rejection I (Anticipation) After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner provide, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18– 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) for the reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites a multi-component floor mat having a textile component comprising a first layer of tufted pile carpet formed by tufting face yarns through a primary backing layer, wherein the face yarns are dyed, printed, or combinations thereof. The Examiner finds Nagahama teaches a multi-component floor mat having a textile component comprising a first layer of tufted pile carpet formed by tufting face yarns through a primary backing layer. Final Act. 5. The Examiner acknowledges that Nagahama does not explicitly teach that the pile face yarns are dyed and/or printed. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds, however, that Nagahama explicitly teaches that there are no limitations on the color of the mat body, which comprises the pile yarns. Id. at 5, 7; Nagahama col. 6, ll. 22–25. Based on this disclosure, the Examiner finds Nagahama teaches implicitly the recited limitation because the disclosed coloration of the mat pile would necessitate the pile face yarns to be dyed Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 4 and/or printed with color. Final Act. 7. Thus, the Examiner finds Nagahama anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Nagahama teaches a multi-component floor mat having a textile component comprising a first layer of tufted pile carpet formed by tufting face yarns through a primary backing layer in the Appeal Brief. See generally Appeal Br. 4. Instead, Appellant argues that Nagahama does not teach the claim limitation of “wherein the face yarns are dyed, printed, or combinations thereof” and, therefore, fails to anticipate the claimed invention. Id. Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102. In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978). Further, to anticipate, one skilled in the art must be able to “at once envisage” the claimed subject matter in the prior art disclosure. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962). In evaluating references, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nagahama’s disclosure that “there is no particular limitation on . . . the color” would have led one skilled in the art to at once envisage that Nagahama’s teachings encompass a mat having “face yarns [that] are dyed, printed, or combinations thereof.” Appellant does not explain adequately why Nagahama’s disclosure fails to Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 5 describe “face yarns [that] are dyed, printed, or combinations thereof.” Nor does Appellant provide any evidence or persuasive line of technical reasoning to rebut the Examiner’s reasonable finding that Nagahama anticipates the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 4. Thus, on this record, Appellant does not adequately show patentable distinction of the claimed invention over the prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18–21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) for the reasons the Examiner presents and we give above. Because Appellant relies on this same line of arguments to address the separate rejection of claims 12, 17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nagahama (Rejection II) (Appeal Br. 5–6), we affirm these rejections as well for the same reasons the Examiner presents and we give above. Rejection III (Obviousness) Claim 1 The Examiner presents an alternative rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nagahama and Kobayashi. Final Act. 9. In the alternative rejection, the Examiner further relies on Kobayashi as teaching that it is known to make a mat component comprising face yarns tufted into a primary backing that may be dyed or printed to meet user specifications. Id. at10; Kobayashi ¶¶ 19, 22. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dye or print the face yarns of Nagahama’s floor mat for the reasons Kobayashi provides. Final Act. 10. Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 6 Appellant addresses this rejection using a line of arguments substantially similar to the arguments presented for the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 7, with id. at 4. We have considered Appellant’s arguments in full, but are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. As we discuss above, Nagahama envisages coloration of face yarns in a mat. The Examiner’s reliance on Kobayashi in this obviousness rejection reinforces that coloration of face fibers in a mat is well known and within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Thus, Appellant fails to explain why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of providing the desired coloration to the face fibers of a mat, as the cited art teaches, to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons the Examiner presents and those we give above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–7 and 9–23 are affirmed. Appeal 2020-005500 Application 15/212,350 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18–21, 23 102 Nagahama 1–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18–21, 23 12, 17, 22 102/103 Nagahama 12, 17, 22 1–7, 9–23 103 Nagahama, Kobayashi 1–7, 9–23 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED