Ex Parte Fee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2018

14266269 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/266,269 04/30/2014
44088 7590
Kaufhold Dix Patent Law
P. 0. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
10/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Taylor Fee
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SK10284 4432
EXAMINER
BATTISTI, DEREK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2018 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):
j ason@kaufboldlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAYLOR FEE
Appeal2018-003690 1
Application 14/266,2692
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Aug 15,
2017), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 6, 2017), and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 19, 2016).
2 Appellant identifies the inventor, Taylor Fee, as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003690
Application 14/266,269
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates "to a new storage assembly for
allowing a person to organize and readily access various items." Spec.
1:13-14.
Claims 1 and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A storage assembly with pockets comprising:
[(a)] a flexible panel having a first side, a second side and
a perimeter edge extending around and between said first side
and said second side, said panel being positionable in an
extended position and a folded position, said panel being
elongated wherein said perimeter edge includes a pair of short
sides and a pair of long sides attached to and extending between
said pair of short sides;
[ (b)] a plurality of pockets coupled to said first side of said
panel, said plurality of pockets comprising at least four pockets,
each of said pockets having a respective first end, second end and
perimeter wall coupled to and extending between said respective
first and second ends, said first end of each of said pockets being
open to provide access to an interior of an associated one of said
pockets, said first ends of said pockets being aligned along one
of said long sides of said perimeter edge, said pockets being
vertically stacked relative to each other when said panel is in said
folded position;
[ ( c)] a plurality of supports coupled to said panel, said
plurality of supports comprising at least three supports, said
supports being evenly spaced between said short sides of said
perimeter edge of said panel, each of said supports being
positioned between associated ones of said pockets to provide
rigidity between said associated pockets and facilitate retaining
said panel in said folded position, each said support comprising
a rigid planar member, each of said supports being positioned
within an interior of said panel;
2
Appeal2018-003690
Application 14/266,269
[(d)] a projection coupled to and extending outwardly
from said perimeter edge of said panel forming a lip extending
around said panel; and
[(e)] a tab coupled to and extending outwardly from said
projection wherein said tab facilitates holding of said assembly,
said tab being coupled to an associated one of said short sides,
said tab having a width less than a length of said associated one
of said short sides, said tab being centrally positioned on said
associated one of said short sides wherein said tab extends
laterally from said perimeter edge relative to said pockets.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Foster (US 1,418,371, iss. June 6, 1922).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Foster
and Skupin (US 7,658,307 B2, iss. Feb. 9, 2010).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Foster
and Davidoff (US 7,828,457 B2, iss. Nov. 9, 2010).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Foster and Elliott (US 2009/0101530 Al, pub. Apr. 23, 2009).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Foster, Elliot, and Skupin.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Foster, Elliot, and Davidoff.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Foster and Perla (US 4,440,525, iss. Apr. 3, 1984).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Foster, Elliot, Skupin, Davidoff, and Perla.
3
Appeal2018-003690
Application 14/266,269
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims3, 6, and 17
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Foster does not
disclose that the plurality of pockets are "vertically stacked relative to each
other when said panel is in said folding position," or that the plurality of
supports are "evenly spaced between said short sides of said perimeter edge
of said panel, as required by claim 1, limitations (b) and ( c ). Br. 8-9. The
Examiner finds that element 6 of Foster's storage assembly discloses the
claimed plurality of pockets of limitation (b ), and element 10 discloses the
claimed plurality of supports of limitation ( c ). Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Foster,
Figs. 1-2). According to the Examiner, the only aspects of limitations (b)
and (c) that are not taught by Foster are that the plurality of pockets include
at least four pockets and that the plurality of supports include three supports.
Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill to modify Foster's storage assembly to have at least four
pockets and three supports, because duplication of parts involves only
routine skill. Id.
However, the Examiner does not identify, and we do not find, support
for the Examiner's finding that elements 10 are spaced evenly among the
short sides, as required by limitation ( c ). Likewise, the Examiner also does
not adequately explain how Foster's pockets 6 are vertically stacked relative
to each other when said panel is in a folded position, as required by
limitation (b ).
Foster relates to a money belt adapted to be worn by women that is
figure-conforming and unnoticeable with respect to influence upon the outer
4
Appeal2018-003690
Application 14/266,269
garments. Foster 1, 11. 13-22. Transverse verticle stiffening ribs or corset
stays 10 contribute supporting function while holding the money belt itself
in shape and keeping the pockets in a taut and flat position. Id. at 1, 11. 64--
67, 80-84. Supports 10 "maintain a certain flatness and stiffness to the belt
whether off or on the body which is useful in manipulating the pockets and
the flaps thereof." Id. at 1, 11. 84--89. Put differently, Foster's money belt is
designed to lay flat, not to fold such that pockets are stacked vertically. As
such, Foster's money belt need not have evenly spaced supports 10 to
facilitate retaining the panel in the folded position. Indeed, Figure 1 of
Foster depicts supports 10 unevenly spaced between the two short ends of
the money belt.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a )(1) of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 6, and 17.
Dependent Claims 7, 8, 10-15 and 18
Claims 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 depend from claim 1. The Examiner's
rejections of claims 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 do not cure the deficiency in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 7, 8, 10-15, and
18 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Independent Claim 19
Independent claim 19 recites language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1, and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied
with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 7. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 19 for
the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
5
Appeal2018-003690
Application 14/266,269
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
6