World Fibers, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 13, 20212020003468 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/657,081 03/13/2015 Gregory V. Andrews 0047/9US 9228 78107 7590 01/13/2021 ASHLEY LAW FIRM P.C. 10800 SIKES PLACE SUITE 100 CHARLOTTE, NC 28277 EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY V. ANDREWS, RAYVON A. MORTON, PAUL W. CORNELISON, and JOHN D. SIMMONS Appeal 2020-003468 Application 14/657,081 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, 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 to reject claims 1, 3–6, 10, 15–18, 23, 27, 28, and 30. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as World Fibers, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003468 Application 14/657,081 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a protective glove with enhanced exterior sections. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A glove comprising: (a) a palm section, and a plurality of finger sections; (b) a primary yarn defining the palm section, and the plurality of finger sections, the primary yarn having an interior surface defining an interior surface of the glove and an exterior surface defining an exterior surface of the glove, the primary yarn comprising a core comprising a first core strand of fiberglass and a second core strand of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene extending parallel to the first core strand, and a cover comprising at least one cover strand wrapped around the core; and (c) a secondary yarn plaited to selected portions of the exterior surface of the primary yarn defining a plurality of enhanced sections formed on the exterior surface of the glove, the plurality of enhanced sections having enhanced cut resistance in relation to the primary yarn, the secondary yarn comprising a hard particle-filled polyethylene fiber wherein the hard particles have a MOHS hardness of greater than three, the plurality of enhanced sections comprising a plurality of spaced apart ring sections extending laterally on at least one of the plurality of finger sections on the exterior surface of the glove and defining a spaced interval therebetween. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sandor US 5,597,649 Jan. 28, 1997 Thompson US 2013/0205469 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 Hummel WO 2007/024872 A2 Mar. 1, 2007 Appeal 2020-003468 Application 14/657,081 3 REJECTION The rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite (Final Act. 2–3) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Claims 1, 3–6, 10, 15–18, 23, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson, Hummel, and Sandor. Final Act. 3. OPINION The full extent of Appellant’s argument against the Examiner’s rejection amounts to 1) pointing out that Sandor lacks the subject matter for which Thompson and Hummel were cited (Appeal Br. 10–11); and 2) making the general assertion that “incremental but unobvious improvements serve the public interest” (Appeal Br. 11 (citing In re Hummer, 241 F.2d 742 (CCPA 1957))). Arguments must address the Examiner’s action. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”). “Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection.” See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). “[T]he Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Id. at 1075–76. It is well-settled that “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Appellant’s argument, merely pointing out that Sandor lacks the subject matter for which Thompson and Hummel were cited by the Examiner, does not apprise us of any error in the Appeal 2020-003468 Application 14/657,081 4 Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter, be it an incremental improvement or otherwise, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Ans. 4–5. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–6, 10, 15–18, 23, 27, 28, 30 103(a) Thompson, Hummel, Sandor 1, 3–6, 10, 15–18, 23, 27, 28, 30 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation