Robert A. Hansen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 14, 2019

12345215 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2019)

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.
12/345,215 12/29/2008 Robert A. Hansen 127507-06302 7442
141216 7590 11/14/2019
McCarter & English, LLP / Albany International
Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Ave.,
31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2019 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):
NYdocket@mccarter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT A. HANSEN, BJORN RYDIN,
and GLENN KORNETT
____________
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25.2, 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Dec. 29, 2008
(“Spec.”); the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 14, 2018 (“Non-Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 13, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Nov. 2, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 27,
2018 (“Reply Brief”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Albany International Corp. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 2, 6–8, 13–15, 21, and 26–48 are withdrawn or cancelled. Appeal
Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a laminated pad structure, which
contains both axially elastomeric yarns and relatively inelastic yarns in
various patterns. Abstract. According to the Specification, the structure
includes functional yarns in a longitudinal direction, layered both over, as
well as under, the elastic media layered in a cross-direction. Spec. 2.
Regarding the “laminated structure” recitation of the claimed subject
matter, the Specification discloses that the pad’s structure includes, for
example, “two woven layers with an elastomeric layer there between” and “a
binder yarn weaving between the layers.” Spec. 5:9–12. Figure 10A of the
Specification also shows the claimed laminated structure with elastomeric
yarn 40 and functional yarns 20 and 30 laminated between two fabrics, as
described at page 5 of the Specification. Spec. 12:1–4, Fig. 10A.
The Specification further describes the entire structure as being
“bound together” in order to allow further processing of the structure as a
“base fabric” and bonded together via the use of, for example, adhesives,
welding technology, or laser bonding. Spec. 2:29–32. The structure is also
said to have a high degree of both compressibility under an applied normal
load and excellent recovery (resiliency or spring back) upon removal of that
load. Abstract; Spec. 1: 10–12, 2:12–14, 2:17–19.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief
(Appendix I):
1. A compressible resilient pad, the pad having an original
thickness and includes a structure comprising:
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
3
a plurality of parallel warp yarns;
a plurality of parallel shute yarns;
wherein either or both of shute yarns or warp yarns are
comprised of an axially elastomeric material,
wherein the structure is a laminated structure
comprising:
a first layer of the parallel yarns running in either the
warp or the shute direction;
a second layer of the parallel yarns on one side of the
first layer, the second layer’s yarns running in the warp or shute
direction different from that of the first layer and comprising
the elastomeric yarns; and
a third layer of the parallel yarns on the opposite side of
the second layer as the first layer and running in the same
direction as those of the first layer,
wherein the parallel yarns of the third layer are aligned
such that the parallel yarns of the third layer nest between the
parallel yarns of the first layer without interfering with one
another to allow the structure to compact to form a planar
structure in a through thickness direction when the pad is under
a pressure load;
wherein the elastomeric yarns are elastic in their through
thickness direction and length or axial direction such that under
the pressure load the elastomeric yarns stretch and compress to
conform to the nesting and, the structure springs back to
substantially the original thickness after removal of the pressure
load.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix I) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).

Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Pufahl US 3,316,136 Apr. 25, 1967
Maglio et al. (“Maglio”) US 3,537,928 Nov. 3, 1970
Gaffney US 3,723,218 Mar. 27, 1973
Wiegand US 4,088,805 May 9, 1978
Fontana (“Fontana ’840”) US 4,328,840 May 11, 1982
Fontana (“Fontana ’841”) US 4,328,841 May 11, 1982
Basse et al. (“Basse”) US 5,436,052 July 25, 1995
Morman et al. (“Morman”) US 6,001,460 Dec. 14, 1999
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections:4
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Basse or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Basse in view of Gaffney
(“Rejection 1”). Ans. 4.
2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basse in view of
Wiegand (“Rejection 2”). Id. at 6.
3. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiegand in view of
Basse (“Rejection 3”). Id. at 8.

4 The Examiner’s § 103 rejections based on Eagles et al. (US 6,158,576,
issued Dec. 12, 2000) in combination with certain other references are
withdrawn by the Examiner at page 3 of the Answer.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
5
4. Claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fontana ’840 in
view of Morman (“Rejection 4”). Id. at 10.
5. Claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fontana ’840 in
view of Maglio (“Rejection 5”). Id. at 12.
6. Claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fontana ’840 in
view of Pufahl (“Rejection 6”). Id. at 14.
7. Claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fontana ’841 in
view of Morman (“Rejection 7”). Id. at 16.
8. Claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fontana ’841 in
view of Maglio (“Rejection 8”). Id. at 18.
9. Claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fontana ’841 in
view of Pufahl (“Rejection 9”). Id. at 20.
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 under
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Basse or, in the alternative, under § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Basse and Gaffney (Ans. 4–6), which we
refer to as Rejection 1.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
6
The Examiner determines that Basse discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 and concludes the reference anticipates the claim. Ans. 4–5.
Alternatively, the Examiner determines that the combination of Basse and
Gaffney suggests a pad satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and
concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Basse does not disclose or suggest a “laminated structure,”
as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant contends
that, in contrast to the claimed laminated structure, Basse discloses a net
made up of three layers of offset strands wherein the strands in the outer
planes are connected to strands in the middle plane at points of intersection.
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Basse, Abstract, 2:47–51, 2:67–3:2).
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because Gaffney does not cure the deficiencies in Basse’s disclosure.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that, like Basse, Gaffney does not
disclose or suggest a laminated structure, as recited in the claim. Id. at 10.
Rather, Appellant contends Gaffney is directed to a method for
manufacturing net and net-like products and discloses that these types of
netting products can be bonded via a certain extrusion process to form an
extruded net. Id. at 10–11 (citing Gaffney 1:35–40, 1:45–48, 2:30–34); see
also Gaffney 1:11–12 (Abstract) (“A method and apparatus for the
manufacture of net and netlike products from molten polymer is provided.”).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive because the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Basse, individually or in
combination with Gaffney, discloses or suggests a “laminated structure,” as
claimed. The Examiner also has not provided adequate reasoning or
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
7
directed us to persuasive evidence in the record sufficient to establish one of
ordinary of skill would have combined Basse and Gaffney to arrive at the
claimed invention. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(holding the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness).
None of the portions of Basse or Gaffney the Examiner cites and
relies upon in the rejection discloses or suggests a laminated structure as
required by the claim. See Ans. 4–5. Rather, as Appellant correctly points
out (Appeal Br. 9), Basse is directed to and discloses a net and, in particular,
a spacing net with strands arranged in three planes and strands in two planes
oriented equidirectionally. Abstract, 1:26–29, 2:43–46. Although Basse
teaches that the inner strands of the net may be elastically deformable and
have good resilience (Basse 1:40–45, 1:50–52), Basse does not teach or
suggest that the net is a laminated structure, as claimed.
Gaffney, likewise, does not teach or suggest a laminated structure, as
claimed. Rather, as Appellant notes (Appeal Br. 10–11), Gaffney is directed
to a method for manufacturing net and net-like products and discloses an
extrusion process for forming an “extruded net” from molten polymer and
that the nets can be bonded during co-extrusion. Gaffney 1:3–4 (Title),
1:10–21 (Abstract), Figs. 1, 2. Although Gaffney discusses co-extruding a
plurality of strands or continuous sheets from molten polymer via multiple
die members and contacting them to cause bonding to form a net (Gaffney
1:14–21, 1:26–31), there is no teaching or suggestion that the net structure
formed via Gaffney’s co-extrusion process is a laminated structure, as
recited in the claims.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
8
Moreover, for principally the same reasons provided by Appellant at
pages 7–13 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2–3 of the Reply Brief, and in
light of the claim language and the Specification’s disclosure regarding the
claimed laminate structure being a pad having two woven layers with an
elastomeric layer there between (Spec. 5:9–12), we are not persuaded the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the net
and net-like products disclosed by Basse and Gaffney or co-extruded netting
structures resulting from Gaffney’s extrusion process fall within the scope of
a laminated structure as claimed.
Appellant also argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined Basse and Gaffney to arrive at the claimed invention because
neither reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. Appeal
Br. 11–13. Appellant contends that because both Basse and Gaffney
concern and are directed to the field of netting, they are not in the same field
of endeavor as the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been led to either of these references in considering the
particular problem addressed by the claimed invention. Id. at 12.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Two separate tests define the
scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d. 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “A reference is reasonably
pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the
inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
9
deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We find that neither Basse nor Gaffney is from the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention. The claimed invention is directed to a
laminated pad structure having, for example, two woven layers with an
elastomeric layer there between and a binder yarn weaving between the
layers. Spec. 5:9–12, 12:1–4, Fig. 10A. The Specification discloses the
claimed laminated structure as a fabric structure, which conforms under
pressure and springs back to substantially the original thickness after
removal of the pressure, for use as a pad in, for example, sports shoes,
running shoes, and boots. Id. at 1:10–13, 2:23–24, 7:19–23.
In contrast to the claimed invention, however, both Basse and Gaffney
are in the field of netting and, as previously discussed above, directed to
nets, netting structures and methods for manufacturing a net and net-like
products. See Basse, Abstract, 2:47–51, 2:67–3:2; Gaffney 1, 11–12, 1:35–
40, 1:45–48, 2:30–34.
We also find that neither Basse nor Gaffney is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventors are involved. In particular,
based on Basse’s teachings regarding a net for use as a spacing net or
protective net for highly finished surfaces (Basse 1:9–10) and Gaffney’s
teachings regarding the manufacture of co-extruded net and net-like products
(Gaffney 1:11–21), we are not persuaded that either reference logically
would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the
problem addressed by the claimed invention. The Examiner does not
meaningfully address Appellant’s arguments regarding the differences
between Basse’s and Gaffney’s net and net-like products and the claimed
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
10
laminate structure in the form of a pad or fabric having woven layers with an
elastomeric layer there between or provide a persuasive technical
explanation for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
Basse’s and Gaffney’s disclosures regarding netting in considering, for
example, the problem of developing a shock-absorbing laminated pad
structure for use in sport and running shoes.
Thus, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Basse and
Gaffney are analogous art.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
being anticipated by Basse or alternatively, the Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Basse and
Gaffney to arrive at the subject matter recited in the claim. Because claims
3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 depend from claim 1, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5,
9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and anticipated by Basse
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Basse and Gaffney.
Rejections 2 and 3
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Basse and Wiegand (Ans. 6–8),
which we refer to as Rejection 2, and the combination of Wiegand and Basse
(Ans. 8–10), which we refer to as Rejection 3.
The foregoing deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and analysis
regarding the Basse reference discussed above in reversing the Examiner’s
Rejection 1, including that Basse is non-analogous art, are not remedied by
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
11
the Examiner’s findings regarding the additional Wiegand reference or the
combination of Basse and Wiegand cited in support of the second and third
grounds of rejection.
Accordingly, for principally the same reasons stated above for
reversing Rejection 1, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 5,
9–12, 16–20, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Basse and Wiegand, and the combination of Wiegand and
Basse.
Rejection 4
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Fontana ’840 and Morman
(Ans. 10–11), which we refer to as Rejection 4.
The Examiner determines that the combination of Fontana ’840 and
Morman suggests a pad satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and
concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Ans. 10–11. Regarding the “laminated structure” recitation of claim 1, the
Examiner relies on Morman for teaching or suggesting that element of the
claim. Id. at 10. In particular, the Examiner finds Morman discloses that it
is known in the elastic band art to form a laminated structure to provide a
product that is pleasant to the touch and pleasant next to the skin for
extended periods of time. Id. at 10 (citing Morman 1:10–23, 3:10–13).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art . . . to form a laminated structure with the elastic
fabric of Fontana, motivated by a desire to produce a
product that is pleasant to the touch and/or pleasant next
to the skin for extended periods of time.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
12
Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
Fontana ’840 and Morman based on the rationale provided by the Examiner.
Appeal Br. 30–31; Reply Br. 3–4. Rather, Appellant contends a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated by Morman’s
teaching to form a laminated structure using Fontana ’840’s elastic fabric
to achieve a structure that is pleasant to the touch and/or next to the skin for
extended periods of time because Fontana ’840’s woven structure already
achieves that goal. Appeal Br. 30. See Fontana ’840 4:13–16, 4:20–21.
Appellant also contends
[t]he Examiner has not provided a sustainable or adequate
reason that has any rational underpinning to validate why
a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would modify
Fontana’s woven structure (with its already solved
soft-to-skin touch) into a laminated structure with an
already soft-to-skin touch.
Appeal Br. 31.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. On the record before us, we are
not persuaded the Examiner provides reasoning or identifies persuasive
evidence sufficient to establish one of ordinary of skill would have had
reason to combine Fontana ’840 and Morman to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(requiring “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
In particular, principally for the reasons provided by Appellant at
pages 30–31 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3–4 of the Reply Brief, we agree
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
13
with Appellant that because Fontana ’840 discloses a structure, which
already has “unique softness” for use in contact with the skin (Fontana ’840
4:20–21; see also id. at 4:13–19 (disclosing “the use will gain the advantage
of indifferently using either side of the fabric in contact with the skin”)), a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine
Fontana ’840’s teachings regarding a woven structure with Morman’s
teachings regarding a laminate structure based on the rationale and reasoning
provided by the Examiner.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
determination that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Fontana ’840 and Morman to arrive at the subject matter recited in the claim.
Because claims 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 depend from claim 1, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5,
9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Fontana ’840 and Morman.
Rejection 5
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Fontana ’840 and Maglio
(Ans. 12–13), which we refer to as Rejection 5.
The Examiner’s findings regarding Maglio’s disclosure are similar to
the Examiner’s findings regarding Morman’s disclosure and the Examiner’s
analysis and reasoning for combining Fontana ’840 with Maglio to arrive at
the claimed invention rest principally on the same flawed findings and
reasoning for combining Fontana ’840 with Morman discussed above in
reversing Rejection 4. Compare Ans. 12, with Ans. 10.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
14
Accordingly, for principally the same reasons stated above for
reversing Rejection 4, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5,
9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
Fontana ’840 and Maglio.
Rejection 6
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Fontana ’840 and Pufahl
(Ans. 14–15), which we refer to as Rejection 6.
The Examiner determines that the combination of Fontana ’840 and
Pufahl suggests a pad satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and
concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Ans. 14–15. Regarding the “laminated structure” recitation of claim 1, the
Examiner relies on Pufahl for teaching or suggesting that element of the
claim. Id. at 14. In particular, the Examiner finds Pufahl discloses that it is
known in the elastic fabric art to form a laminated structure to produce a
decorative quilt-like fabric. Id. at 14 (citing Pufahl 1:10–32, 1:62–2:13,
2:55–62).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art . . . to form a laminated structure with the elastic
fabric of Fontana, motivated by a desire to produce a
decorative quilt-like fabric.
Id. at 14.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because the Examiner does not provide reasoning or identify persuasive
evidence in the record to support a finding that a person of ordinary skill
would have had reason to combine the teachings of Fontana ’840 and Pufahl
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
15
to arrive at the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 30; Reply Br. 3–4. In other
words, Appellant contends the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case because the Examiner failed to adequately explain why or establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the cited art to arrive at the claimed
structure.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. Contrary to what the
Examiner’s comments at pages 14–15 of the Answer imply, the mere fact
that Pufahl discloses or suggests it was known in the art to form a laminated
structure to produce a decorative quilt-like fabric, without more, does not
adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
reason to modify Fontana ’840’s woven structure. See Belden Inc. v. Berk–
Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns
whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been
motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at
the claimed invention.”) (emphasis in original).
The Examiner’s assertion that the “motivation to combine Fontana
with Pufahl is to produce the product of Fontana with a desirable decorative
(quilt-like) contour” (Ans. 30) is not persuasive because it is conclusory and,
without more, insufficient to sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988 (holding “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements”).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
determination that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Fontana ’840 and Pufahl to arrive at the subject matter recited in the claim.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
16
Because claims 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 depend from claim 1, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5,
9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Fontana ’840 and Pufahl.
Rejections 7, 8, and 9
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 9–12, 16–20, and 22–25 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Fontana ’841 and Morman
(Ans. 16–17), which we refer to as Rejection 7; the combination of Fontana
’841 and Maglio (Ans. 18–19), which we refer to as Rejection 8; and the
combination of Fontana ’841 and Pufahl (Ans. 20–21), which we refer to as
Rejection 9.
Because each of the Examiner’s Rejections 7, 8, and 9 are based on
Fontana ’841 in combination with Morman, Maglio, and Pufahl,
respectively, and Fontana ’841’s disclosure is similar to Fontana ’840’s
disclosure (compare Fontana ’841, Fig. 1, 1:66–2:12, with Fontana ’840,
Fig. 1, 2:14–32), and the Examiner’s analyses for each of Rejections 7, 8,
and 9 rest principally on the same flawed findings and conclusions as
Rejections 4, 5, and 6, respectively, we also reverse Rejections 7, 8, and 9
for principally the same reasons discussed above for reversing Rejections 4,
5, and 6, respectively.
Appeal 2019-001796
Application 12/345,215
17
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 9–12,
16–20, 23–25
102(b) Basse 1, 4, 5, 9–12,
16–20, 23–25
1, 4, 5, 9–12,
16–20, 23–25
103(a) Basse, Gaffney 1, 4, 5, 9–12,
16–20, 23–25
1, 4, 5, 9–12,
16–20, 23–25
103(a) Basse, Wiegand 1, 4, 5, 9–12,
16–20, 23–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Wiegand, Basse 1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Fontana ’840,
Morman
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Fontana ’840,
Maglio
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Fontana ’840,
Pufahl
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Fontana ’841,
Morman
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Fontana ’841,
Maglio
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
103(a) Fontana ’841,
Pufahl
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 9–12,
16–20, 22–25

REVERSED