COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
UNOBVIOUS: Prior Art and Workshop Practice.
As a result of the Hearing, the applicant found that essential
elements of the invention were not fully stated in the claims
and new claims were filed.None of the prior art, alone or
combined, suggested the invention nor its advantages.
Spontaneous acceptance by the industry was strong evidence
of its inventiveness.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed in-part new claims acceptable.
***************************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated August 14, 1973
on application 149,717. This application was filed on August 18,
1972 in the name of Alice Koves and refers to an "Elastic Waist
Construction For Garment." The Patent Appeal Board conducted a
Hearing on January 9, 1974, at which Mr. M.J. Marcus and Mr.M.E.
Thrift represented the applicant. Also in attendance was the
inventor, Mrs A. Koves.
This application relates to a continuous one piece elastic band
waist structure for garments. The band is fabricated from
stretchable and contractable foundation garment material, and is
cut in a contoured fashion.A second narrower uncontoured continuous
one piece band is stitched, with elastic thread, to said first band
and to a stretchable body garment.
In the prosecution terminated by the Final Action the examiner
rejected the claims and the application as containing no patentable
subject matter in view of the reference to Middendorf and being
directed to known standard tailoring practices demonstrated in the
references applied.
Les ant‚riorit‚s cit‚es sont les suivantes:
Ant‚riorit‚s cit‚es
Brevets canadiens
236,724 1er janvier 1924 Cl. 2-109 Dessins 1 feuil. LEIBOVITZ
276,538 2 d‚cembre 1927 Cl. 2-109 Dessins 1 feuil. WAXMAN et al
353,640 22 octobre 1935 Cl. 2-109 Dessins 1 feuil. LEVENTHAL
359,489 28 juillet 1936 Cl. 2-110 Dessins 2 feuil. ADAMSON
369,306 12 octobre 1937 Cl. 2-110 Dessins 1 feuil. KREIN
369,368 19 octobre 1937 Cl. 2-110 Dessins 2 feuil. HARDIE
522,544 13 mars 1956 Cl. 2-109 Dessins 1 feuil. STEIN
543,088 2 juillet 1957 Cl. 2-110 Dessins 1 feuil. SCHEITLIN
Brevets am‚ricains
2,149,128 28 f‚vrier 1939 Cl.2-221 THORNER et al
2,434,743 20 janvier 1948 Cl.2-221 MIDDENDORF
Dans la decision finale, 1'examinateur a d‚clar‚ notamment:
Middendorf a invent‚ une ceinture pour vˆtement qui permet de
mettre ou d'enlever celui-ci en ‚tirant la ceinture compos‚e des
‚l‚ments suivants: une ceinture d'une seule piŠce munie d'une
bande ‚lastique int‚rieure ‚galement d'une seule piŠce, non
recouverte, s'adaptant … la taille de la personne qui porte le
vˆtement, et cousue … celui-ci par au moins un rang de piq–re,
faite de pr‚f‚rence avec du fil elastique de fa‡on que le
vˆtement s'ajuste bien … la taille. Les pratiques de confection
courantes, teller que l'utilisation de divers tissus connus, la
maniŠre de les tailler pour suivre les lignes du corps ou encore
les diverses fa‡ons d'assembler des piŠces en les courant les unes
aux autres, ne sont pas consid‚r‚es comme des objets brevetables,
car elles relŠvent de techniques ant‚rieures.
Comme exemples de l'utilisation de divers tissus connus, citons
Thorner et al et Middendorf qui pr‚sent one jupe en tissu exten-
sible avec ceinture ‚lastique, Adamson, one ceinture ‚lastique
dans un seul sens, Scheitlin et Hardie, deux ceintures ‚lastiques
tandis que la coupe du tissu pour que celui-ci s'ajuste parfaitement
… la taille est montr‚ par Thorner et al, Middendorf et Adamson.
Pour terminer, les diff‚rentes fa‡ons d'assembler les piŠces de
tissu en les courant les unes aux autres sont illustr‚es de la
maniŠre suivante: Krein d‚crit one ceinture non-recouverte,
cousue sans ˆtre repli‚e prŠs du bord de la ceinture, comme celle
de la figure 2 de la demanderesse. Krein coud ‚galement la
ceinture au bord inf‚rieur comme l'indiquent les figures 3 et 4 de
la demanderesse. Middendorf, lui, pr‚sente une fa‡on d'assembler
les piŠces au bord sup‚rieur, comme … la figure 3. Leibovitz et
Waxman et al d‚crivent eux la figure 4. Stein montre une fa‡on
similaire … la figure 5 d'assemblage au bord sup‚rieur de la
ceinture. De plus, Stein et Leventhal d‚crivent une structure
similaire aux figures 9 et 10 pr‚sent‚es par la demanderesse.
Dans sa r‚ponse du 14 novembre 1973 … la d‚cision finale, la demanderesse a
d‚clar‚ notamment:
La pr‚sente invention porte pr‚cis‚ment sur des ceintures sans
couture pour vˆtements.
Les exigences relatives … une ceinture pour vˆtement sont qu'elle
doit ˆtre confortable et belle. Dans la plupart des cas, il
n'est malheureusement pas possible de satisfaire … ces deux
exigences. C'est pourquoi, il faut faire des compromis entre le
confort et l'apparence de la ceinture.
En vue de prouver l'‚vidence de la pr‚sente combinaison, la
d‚cision finale traite individuellement de chacune des
caract‚ristiques qui, dans la d‚cision finale sont reconnues
comme n'‚tant ni indiqu‚es ni propos‚es par le brevet Middendorf.
La d‚cision finale indique que ces caract‚ristiques relŠvent des
"pratiques de confection courantes" et qu'elles ne sont donc pas
brevetables. La demanderesse fait respectueusement observer
que cela constitue une dissociation nette et inappropri‚e de la
combinaison revendiqu‚e, sans ‚tablir en aucune fa‡on l'evidence
de la combinaison. Cela est clairement indiqu‚ par la cause
Wood et Amcolite c Gowshall, cit‚e avec approbation en cause
Omark Industries: "la dissociation d'une combinaison en ses
‚l‚ments constituants, et l'examen de chacun de ces ‚l‚ments
en vue de d‚terminer si son usage ‚tait ‚vident ou non... tend
… obscurcir le fait que l'invention revendiqu‚e est la combi-
naison... La seule v‚ritable question … poser est la suivante:
la combinaison est-elle ‚vidente ou non?" Mˆme si chacun des
‚l‚ments ‚tait ancien, le Bureau des brevets n'a pas ‚tabli que
la combinaison ‚tait ‚vidente. De plus, ces declarations g‚n‚rales
ne s'appuient sur aucun fait et sont, dans au moins un cas, abso-
lument fausses.
Pour ce qui est de l'utilisation d'un tissu de vˆtement de base,
la d‚cision finale indique que cela est "ancien et donc non
brevetable". Cependant, l'invention revendiqu‚e par la deman-
deresse ne porte pas seulement sur l'utilisation d'un tissu de
vˆtement de base, elle r‚side dans la combinaison particuliŠre,
d‚crite. En tentant d'introduire une nouvelle r‚f‚rence non-cit‚e
auparavant (et donc inappropri‚e), la d‚cision finale indique que
"le spandex a ‚t‚ utilis‚ dans des vˆtements de base, des maillots
de bain, des tissus et vˆtements extensibles. Voir le "Consomma-
teur canadien", volume 4, no 2, septembre/octobre 1966 (la section
M5 ci-incluse en donne une photocopie)". Il semble que le Bureau
des brevets considŠre que l'usage ant‚rieur du spandex pour des
vˆtements est une d‚couverte de l'usage du spandex, appliqu‚ dans
une ceinture sans couture. Cette affirmation est tout … fait
fausse, simplement … cause de la signification du mot "vˆtement".
Dans le petit Robert, Soci‚t‚ du Nouveau Litr‚, 1967, "vˆtement"
est d‚fini comme "n. m. (didact.) objet fabriqu‚ pour couvrir le
corps humain, le cacher, le prot‚ger, le parer". La demanderesse
fait respectueusement remarquer que l'utilisation du spandex dans
des tissus et vˆtements extensibles ne divulgue pas sa combinaison
ou aucune partie de celle-ci.
En consid‚rant que le fait que la ceinture sans couture en
tissu de vˆtement de base est coup‚e en forme pour s'adapter
parfaitement … la taille, la d‚cision finale indique que:
"La coupe des piŠces de tissu pour qu'elles
suivent les lignes du corps ou de la taille
n'est pas brevetable parce qu'il s'agit ici
d'une des ‚tapes ou op‚rations de base dans
le domaine de la confection, et que le r‚sultat
obtenu par la demanderesse et par Middendorf
est le mˆme, soit, un vˆtement ajust‚ et
automatiquement adaptable au corps, quelque
soit sa position sur la taille, le vˆtement
n'ayant pas de position devant ni dos, ce qui
permet de le tourner pour ‚viter que le
vˆtement poche … l'usage. Toute personne du
m‚tier doit ˆtre apte … tailler une ceinture
qui s'adapte … la taille de la personne qui
la porte" .
Applicant respectfully submits that this contention is wholly
inadmissible. In the first place, no evidence of "expected
skill" has been introduced. As discussed in the preceding
general comments, "expected skill" or "common knowledge" is
established by reference to what a man skilled in the art is aware
of at the date of invention. No evidence on this point has been
introduced by means of expert testimony or, applicant respectfully
submits can be introduced into the prosecution before the Patent
Office since expert witnesses cannot be called. In the second
place, the statement that the results of applicant and Middendorf
are the same is entirely false. "Middendorf's elastic band is not
contoured; in such a manner the skirt is symmetrical and can be
worn at any circumferential position (see column3, lines 20-25).
In applicant's waist band, on the contrary, the endless band of
foundation garment material is cut and contoured to conform to
the waist area of the wearer. As will be apparent, the human body
is not symmetrical about an axis.The contours of the waist
area are different at the back from at the front and different
at the sides from either the back or the front. With the contoured
configuration of the present invention, the waist band has a front,
a back and two sides and it can only be worn at one circumferential
orientation.
The present application relates to a waistband structure for a
garment, whereby the garment can be put on and taken off by means
of the stretching and contracting of a continuous waistband structure
without the usual closable opening in the waistband portion of the
garment. The structure according to the applicant conforms to the
shape of the body of a wearer without shirring or gathering, and
without giving a binding effect on the body of the wearer.
Several important points were clarified at the Hearing held on
January 9, 1974, at which time exhibits were presented to show
the finished waistband structure, and copies of letters were
presented to add further proof of commercial success over that
explained at the Hearing.
An important point which was brought out is that "a second continuous
one piece narrow stretchable and contractable band," which is stitched
to a primary band and to the stretchable fabric, is an essential element
for the success of the inventive idea for the waistband structure.
This was indicated by the applicant in reference to a specific
embodiment and the subject matter of claim 3. It was also stated
by the inventor herself to be an essential element to the overall
structure. This element, however, was not recited in claims 1, 2
and 6 to 12 as presently on file.
A second important point, which was developed at the hearing, is
that "the garment material was not cut and contoured," but "cut in
a contoured configuration."
In accordance with the above the applicant, on January 15, 1973,
submitted a voluntary amendment to cancel all the claims on file,
and presented new claims in order to specify the essential elements
of the waistband structure. The amendment reads in part:
Further to the submissions and arguments presented at a recent
Hearing of the Patent Appeal Board on January 9th, 1974 at
10:00 A.M., it is desired to amend this application by
replacing the claims presently on file by new claims 1 to 17,
enclosed herewith in duplicate.
It will be recalled that during the course of the Hearing,
applicant presented arguments to the effect that the preferred
embodiment of the invention was more particularly distinct
over the references applied by the Patent Office. The
purpose of the present amendment is to limit the present
invention to the preferred embodiment.
It is noted, therefore, that new claim 1 is directed to the
combination of three essential elements. The first element
is a stretchable fabric constituting an endless circumferential
waist. The second element is a primary exposed unsheathed
interior endless circumferential band which is formed entirely
from stretchable and contractable foundation garment material
and which is cut in a contoured shape to conform biaxially
to the waist area of the garment. The third element is a
second endless circumferential stretchable and contractable
band which is uncontoured and which is substantially narrower
than the primary band. Both the primary band and the second
band are sewen to the garment by a least one row of stretchable
stitches sewn with elastic thread.
It is believed that this claim defines a combination not shown
or suggested by the art of record and conforms with the
arguments for patentability set forth during the course of
the Hearing.
Claim 1 submitted with the voluntary amendment January 15, 1974
reads:
A waistband construction for a garment whereby the garment may
be put on and taken off by means of stretching and contracting
of the waist, said waistband construction comprising the
combination of:
(a) a stretchable fabric constituting an endless
circumferential waist of said garment;
(b) a primary exposed, unsheathed, interior, endless
circumferential band of approximately the same
size as the waist of the garment, said band being
formed entirely from stretchable and contractable
foundation garment material and being cut in a
contoured shape to conform biaxially to the
waist area of the garment; and
(c) a second endless circumferential stretchable
and contractable band, said second band being
uncontoured, and being substantially narrower
than said primary band, said primary band and
said second band being sewn to the garment
by at least one row of stretchable stitches
sewn with elastic thread, whereby said waist-
band conforms to the contour of the waist area
of a wearer, whether the waistband be in the
stretchable or contracted configuration.
This claim is specific to: a stretchable foundation garment material
cut in a contoured configuration to form a continuous unsheathed
primary band, and a second narrow uncontoured elastic band secured
by stretchable stitches sewn with elastic thread to the inside of
the upper portion of the primary band and to the stretchable garment
material.
The question therefore is whether the combination of these elements
as a whole has produced a patentable advance in the art over the
references cited.
The reference to Middendorf, considered by the examiner to be the
primary reference, relates to wearing apparel and more particularly
to skirts. An object of the invention was the construction of a
novel waistband which is continuous throughout the circumference
thereof. The disclosure, column 2 beginning at line 34, reads:
The construction of the waist or band portion is an important
feature of the present invention. This step in the method
consists of folding portion 13 of the top edge of the skirt
to form an annular channel 14 for receiving an elastic band
15. In the preferred form, the folded portion 13 extends
downwardly for a part of the width of the band 15 thereby
leaving the lower edge 15 of the band 15 free and unattached
to the skirt. The folded portion 13, including the pleats 11,
upper portion of band 15 and the outer corresponding portion
of the skirt, is then sewed circumferentially with elastic
thread. Ordinary thread may be used provided the belt assembly
is stretched to the extent of the resitiency of the cloth 10
during the sewing operation, although from experiment I have
found the use of elastic thread preferable.
While this reference discloses a number of the elements of the
newly presented claims, it does not disclose a band of "contoured"
foundation garment material. Instead it discloses a "non-contoured"
elastic band which does not conform to the waist of the wearer. A
second narrow continuous stretchable band foaming part of the waist
structure, regarded by the applicant as an essential element, is not
present in the Middendorf reference.
The reference to Adamson relates to improvements in the construction
of the waist-embracing portion of trousers. It discloses a contoured
non-continuous outer band of a canvas stiffening strip, and the sheath
for this strip has been replaced by a single, stiffening element of
elastic material. In other words Adamson is directed to an open
waistband construction with a limited amount of stretch, where
the canvas stiffening strip is a woven contoured figuration.
The Scheitlin reference discloses a continuous non-contoured
waistband consisting of a sheathed sheet rubber strip.An
additional narrow strip of sheet rubber is interposed between
the sheath rubber strip and the garment fabric.
The Hardie reference discloses a non-contoured waistband structure
that includes the garment fabric constituting the waist portion of
the garment and a sheathed band of sheet rubber, or in some cases
two sheets of rubber, on the interior of the waist portion.
The Thorner reference discloses a skirt having an open type
waistband. The waistband is constructed of garment fabric,
a sheath on the interior of the waist portion of the garment
and a non-contoured elastic-belt on the interior of the waist
portion covered by the sheath.
The references to Krein, Leibovitz, Waxman, Stein and Leventhal
were cited to show features of Figures 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of this
application. The amended claims 1 and 5, however, only cover the
embodiments of Figures 6 and 7. Therefore, since the remaining
claims are dependent on claims 1 or 5, no further discussion of
these references is necessary.
It is agreed that all the elements of amended claim 1 have been shown
in some form in the references, viz Middendorf,Adamson,Thorner,
Hardie and Scheitlin taken collectively. However, no single reference
shows the combination of claim 1 The specific question, as previously
mentioned, is therefore whether the new combination of these elements
has as a whole produced a patentable advance in the art.
The continuous type of waistband is necessarily stretchable. The
overriding consideration in the design of such waistbands is that
the stretch be sufficient for the waistband to pass over the
shoulders or hips of the wearer, as distinct from the open-type
waistbands wherein this is accomplished by openings in the front or
side or the waist portions of the garment. The continuous waistband
structures of the prior art have employed a continuous band of elastic
material, either is the form of sheets of rubber of elastic tape.
The applicant contends that "the prior art continuous waistbands have
normally been arranged to gather or shirr, for example in the use of
pleats," (see the reference to Middendorf) because of the large
amount of stretch required. However,the specific structure disclosed
here to produce a snuggly fitting garment is designed to conform
smoothly to the body of the wearer without shirring or gathering
of the garment material or waistband structure.
At the Hearing the applicant submitted evidence to show there
has been excellent acceptance and spontaneous commercial success
of the product. This evidence was in the form both of letters
of recommendation for the product, and statements about the
expansion in the work force employed to make the product from
11 to 70 within a period of eleven months. There will be a
further expansion of the work force by 60 people in the near
future.
The commercial success of any product, however, may be due to
circumstances other than to inventive ingenuity, high pressure
advertising for example. However, it was stated at the Hearing
that the only advertising has been by "word of mouth and by a
number of displays of the product." In the case of The King
v. American Optical Company (1950) Ex.C.R. 344 at 368. Thorson
J. stated:
The practical utility and commercial success of a new device
may be material in determining whether the new result produced
by it was an obvious workshop improvement or involved the
exercise of inventive ingenuity. Commercial success, by itself,
without the solution of a difficulty, is not sufficient to
establish subject matter. But when it is found that there has
been a problem calling for solution and that the new device
has solved it then its practical utility and commercial success
in displacing alternative devices should be considered strong
evidence that its production required the taking of an inventive
step and that the applicant for the patent was the first to take
it.
It is clear from a consideration of this application and from the
evidence presented at the Hearing, that there was a problem to be
solved. The disclosure, page 3 line 3 reads:
A major problem which the prior art has not yet solved,
however, is the provision of garment bands in which the
rubber is free to expand and contract longitudinally
and will tend to lie flat after being sown whether it be
on the contracted or stretched condition. In addition
to having such characteristics, the garment band would
have to conform substantially to the waist area of the
wearer, and would have to be uniform regardless of the
manufacturing variations that are encountered in practice
The problem is more acute at the present time in view of
the desirability and fashionability of skin-hugging
garments.
The inventor also disclosed at the Hearing that "the problem was
not completely solved until after much thought and experiment,
and not until the addition of the continuous, non-contoured, narrow
elastic band was secured by plastic stitches to the inside top portion
of the continuous contoured primary waist band." The applicant also
submitted an exhibit, in the form of a drawing of a machine, which
the inventor stated had to be specifically designed to add the
narrow band to the contoured primary band.
The applicant also stated that: "One of the most important features
of the present invention is that the endless band be of foundation
garment material." There is no evidence that the material "spandex"
was ever used, much less cut in a contoured configuration for use
in a waistband structure. Furthermore, it is not merely the use of
the garment material, but its use in particular way in the recited
combination. All the references of the prior art cited teach the use
of elastic or rubber bands for the construction of waistbands.
In summary, the primary reference cited to Middendorf, as
previously mentioned, does not disclose: (1) the use of foundation
garment material in the waistband construction; (2) the waistband
cut in a contoured configuration; nor, (3) the use of a narrow
elastic non-contoured band secured to the top inside portion of
the primary band. The references, to Adamson, Scheitlin, Hardie
and Thorner,which were previously discussed, show some of the
elements of the present combination. None of these references,
however, approach or suggest the combination specified in amended
claim 1, alone or when considered together with the primary reference
to Middendorf.
In the circumstances the Board is satisfied that the application
has successfully overcome a problem in the construction of garment
waistbands, and that the innovation has been spontaneously accepted
by the industry. The Board is also satisfied the references cited
fail to teach the feasibility of the applicant's structure in
resolving disadvantages of the prior art structures, and the claims
as they now stand amended could be allowed even without the additional
evidence of its success and acceptance by persons skilled in the art.
Nonetheless, in our view, the evidence of the practical utility
and the commercial success of the product of the present invention
should be considered as strong evidence that its production
required the taking of an inventive step. Vide, The King v. American
Optical Company, supra. Amended claim 1 is therefore considered
allowable. Claim 5, which covers substantially the same subject
matter as in claim 1, is also considered allowable. All the
remaining claims depend on claims 1 or 5 and are considered allowable.
Because of the amendments submitted by the applicant subsequent to
the Hearing, the Board has not had to consider the claims which
were before the examiner, and rejected by him. It would be a
fair presumption, however, that at least some of the claims did
not adequately distinguish over the art of record, nor adequately
define the invention, and were properly rejected. We have found
however, that the amended claims have been restricted to a combination
of elements, which were specifically dicated at the Hearing as
important aspects of the invention.
The Board therefore recommends that the prosecution now be permitted
to proceed with the amended claims as presented by the applicant
on January 15, 1974.
J.F.Hughes,
Assistant Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly
I permit the voluntary amendment of January 15, 1974 to be entered.
The application is returned to the examiner for resumption of
prosecution.
Decision accordingly,
J.A.Brown,
Acting Commissioner of Patents.
Signed and dated in
Hull, Quebec this
24th day of January, 1974.
Agent for Applicant
Johnson, Marcus & Wray,
Ottawa, Ontario.