World Fibers, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2021

2020003468 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
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