Yelena Olshansky

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 19, 2019

15331418 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 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. 15/331,418 10/21/2016 Yelena Olshansky 000125-013484 / OLS-000 5774 128166 7590 07/19/2019 DLA Piper LLP (US) Boston ATTN: PATENT GROUP 11911 Freedom Dr. Suite 300 Reston, VA 20190 EXAMINER LYNCH, MEGAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/19/2019 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): BostonIPDocketing@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YELENA OLSHANSKY ____________________ Appeal 2019-004500 Application 15/331,4181 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before BIBHU R. MONANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12–17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention relates “to support garments or half corsets.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1 “The real party [in] interest . . . is . . . Yelena Olshansky.” Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004500 Application 15/331,418 2 1. A half corset for covering below-the-breasts portions of an individual’s abdomen, pelvic region, and thighs, the half corset comprising: a body garment, the body garment having a median length, an inner surface, an outer surface, a first opening, and a second opening opposite to the first opening, the body garment further having: a first side; a second side adjacent to the first side; a third side opposite to the first side, the third side further being adjacent to the second side, the third side having a longer length than both the second side and a fourth side; the fourth side opposite to the second side, the fourth side further being adjacent to both the first side and the third side; and a first fastener patch near the first opening, the first fastener patch being on the third side and on the outer surface; a flap extending from the body garment near the first opening and the first side, the flap being flexibly curvable toward the third side so as to reach a portion of the third side between the second side and the fourth side, the flap having a terminal end distal from the second opening, the flap further having: a second fastener patch near the terminal end, the second fastener patch being attachable to the first fastener patch when the flap is flexibly curved toward the first fastener patch, so that the half corset is fastened and unfastened on the abdomen below the abdomen’s center and above a crotch location between upper thighs of the individual; and an area, disposed away from the second fastener patch, for receiving a sanitary article, wherein the flap has a substantially uniform width between the terminal end and the area; and Appeal 2019-004500 Application 15/331,418 3 at least two support strips extending in directions between the first opening and the second opening. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pruett (US 2,053,165, iss. Sept. 1, 1936); II. Claims 3, 15–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pruett and Osborn (US 5,038,760, iss. Aug. 13, 1991); and III. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pruett and Beauvais (US 8,108,947 B2, iss. Feb. 7, 2012). ANALYSIS Rejection I As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a flap . . . having . . . a second fastener patch . . . being attachable to [a] first fastener patch when the flap is flexibly curved toward the first fastener patch, so that the half corset is fastened and unfastened on the abdomen below the abdomen’s center and above a crotch location between upper thighs of the individual. Br., Claims App. Appellant and the Examiner disagree as to whether Pruett discloses a flap fastening and unfastening on the abdomen below the abdomen’s center and above a crotch location between upper thighs of the individual. See, e.g., Answer 2–3; see, e.g., Br. 7–9. Based on our review of the record, we determine that the Examiner does not support adequately that Pruitt discloses the claimed location for flap fastening and fastening. Appeal 2019-004500 Application 15/331,418 4 Appellant’s Specification describes the abdomen as an example of a portion of the lower torso, but does not otherwise define the term “abdomen.” Spec. ¶ 21. A relevant definition of “abdomen” is “the part of the body between the thorax and the pelvis.” From https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/abdomen, last accessed July 11, 2019. The Examiner does not establish that Pruitt describes or illustrates a flap fastening and unfastening on the part of the body between the pelvis and thorax. Instead, Pruitt appears expressly to illustrate fastening and unfastening on the pelvis. See Pruitt, Figs. 1–3. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14 that depend from, and which the Examiner rejects with, claim 1. Rejection II Dependent Claims 3 and 15 Claims 3 and 15 depend from independent claim 1, the rejection of which we do not sustain. The Examiner does not rely on Osborn to disclose anything that would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1’s obviousness rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 15. Independent claim 16, and its dependent claims 17, 19, and 20 Independent claim 16 includes a recitation similar to that discussed above with respect to claim 1, and the Examiner’s reliance on Pruitt is substantially that same as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 16 for substantially the same Appeal 2019-004500 Application 15/331,418 5 reasons we do not sustain claim 1’s rejection. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 19, and 20 that depend from, and which the Examiner rejects with, claim 16. Rejection III Claim 13 depends from independent claim 1, the rejection of which we do not sustain. The Examiner does not rely on Beauvais to disclose anything that would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1’s obviousness rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 13. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12–17, 19, and 20. REVERSED