Ex parte Kobuchi

• Docket Number: Appeal 2023-000362,Application 15/570,498,Technology Center 1700
• Decision Date: 26 January 2024
• Parties: Ex parte SHINICHI KOBUCHI, TERUYUKI TANTNAKA, HIROYUKI WAKUI, TAKAHIRO KURAMOTO, NORIKI FUKUNISHI, TAKUO INOUE, and YASUSHI YAMADA
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

1

Ex parte SHINICHI KOBUCHI, TERUYUKI TANTNAKA, HIROYUKI WAKUI, TAKAHIRO KURAMOTO, NORIKI FUKUNISHI, TAKUO INOUE, and YASUSHI YAMADA

Appeal 2023-000362

Application 15/570,498

Technology Center 1700

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

January 26, 2024

FILING DATE: 10/30/2017

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

COLAIANNI, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[1] appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 24-27. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claims are directed to a net-like structure, which may be used as cushion material in office chairs, furniture, sofas, beds, seats for vehicles, and shock-absorbing mats. Spec. 1:6-9.

Claim 24, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter

24. A net-like structure having a three-dimensional random loop bonded structure constituted of a thermoplastic elastomer continuous linear body

wherein

said net-like structure has, in a thickness direction thereof, a thin fiber main region that mainly includes thin fibers having a fiber size of greater than or equal to 0.48 mm and less than or equal to 1.5 mm, a thick fiber main region that mainly includes thick fibers having a fiber size of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 2.5 mm and a mixed region that is located between said thin fiber main region and said thick fiber main region and includes said thin fibers and said thick fibers in a mixed state

a percentage of the number of said thin fibers included in said thin fiber main region is greater than or equal to 90% of the total number of fibers included in said thin fiber main region, a percentage of the number of said thick fibers included in said thick fiber main region is greater than or equal to 90% of the total number of fibers included in said thick fiber main region, the fiber sizes of said thick fibers are greater than those of said thin fibers by greater than or equal to 0.07 mm and less than or equal to 0.25 mm,

the residual strain after 750 N constant load repeated compression at pressurization from the side of said thin fiber main region of said net-like structure is less than or equal to 15%,

said thick fibers have a triangular cross section, and

3

a thermoplastic elastomer constituting said thermoplastic elastomer continuous linear body is a polyester-based thermoplastic elastomer.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

REFERENCE

The Examiner relies on the following references to reject the claims:

Name	Reference	Date
Hideo[2]	JP H07189105 A	July 25, 1995

REJECTION

The Examiner maintains the following rejection:

Claim(s) Rejected	35U.S.C. §	Reference(s)/Basis
24-27	103	Hideo

OPINION

Claims 24-26

The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Hideo with respect to claims 24-26 are located on pages 2 to 4 of the Final Office Action.

The Examiner finds Hideo teaches the subject matter of claim 24, except for the claim limitation reciting that the fiber sizes of thick fibers are greater than those of thin fibers by greater than or equal to 0.07 mm (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds Hideo teaches that the basic fiber layer

4

possesses a larger fiber thickness (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds Hideo also teaches that a lower fiber thickness is correlated with increased softness, whereas a greater fiber thickness is correlated with increased durability (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to have optimized the difference in thickness or fineness between the thin fibers and the thick fibers to increase the degrees of softness and durability of Hideo's network structure (Final Act. 3).

Appellant argues Hideo teaches away from a required difference in fiber fineness between the thin fibers and the thick fibers, which is measured as an lb/Is ratio (Appeal Br. 8).^[3] Appellant cites Hideo's paragraph 12 for teaching that the lb/Is value must be 2.0 or more in order to provide a desired control of the cushioning property and uniform dispersion of compressive stress (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant particularly argues "Hideo expressly teaches that lb/Is is 2.0 or more,preferably 4 or more, and that below 2.0 the effect is insufficiently exhibited. This is an express teaching away from below 2.0" (Appeal Br. 8 (citing Hideo ¶12)). Appellant's Brief includes a Figure, reproduced below, to support the contention that the scope of claim 24 lies outside Hideo's preferred lb/Is value of 2.0 or more:

5

(Image Omitted)

Appellant's Figure, reproduced above, illustrates a graph having an x-axis of thin fibers ranging from 0.0 to 1.6 mm in thickness and a y-axis of thick fibers ranging from 0.0 to 3.0 mm in thickness (Appeal Br. 6). The graph includes a plot of: (i) a diagonal line representing Hideo's lb/Is value of 2.0 and (ii) a quadrangle representing the scope of claim 24 (Appeal Br. 6).

Appellant argues that "every point within the scope of claim 24 is outside the scope of Hideo" (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant argues that Hideo is directed to solving the problems of the prior art by requiring that the ratio of lb/Is is 2.0 or greater (Appeal Br. 8).

Contrary to Appellant's arguments, we do not find that Hideo teaches away from the claimed size difference between thick fibers and thin fibers recited...