Adel Checri

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2021

2020006413 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
15/099,284 04/14/2016 Adel Edouard Checri 006910.6271 3464
5073 7590 10/18/2021
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
LEE, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2021 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):
PTOmail1@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADEL EDOUARD CHECRI
Appeal 2020-006413
Application 15/099,284
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5–7, 9–14, and 17–20. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief does not identify the real party in interest.
Appeal 2020-006413
Application 15/099,284

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a rotatable tail brush used to clean a pool
and a tail sweep comprising such a brush. See, e.g., independent claims 5
and 11. Appeal Br. 12, 14 (Claims Appendix).
According to the Specification, “[t]echnical advantages . . . may
include better surface scrubbing and increased lifetime due to the rotation of
the brush.” Spec. 3:12–14. This is because conventional scrubbers, e.g.,
sponges, that are typically installed on a tail sweep hose are purportedly
“substantially stationary and do not rotate around the hose,” resulting in
uneven wear and frequent replacement unless such scrubbers are manually
adjusted. Id. at 6:1–16.
Claim 5 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced
below with the key limitation on appeal italicized for emphasis:
5. A tail sweep for cleaning a pool, comprising:
a hose, the hose comprising a first end and a second end,
wherein the first end is operable to be coupled to an automated pool
cleaner;
at least one ring disposed around the hose;
a brush comprising;
an emission hole configured to expel liquid;
an at least partially hollow body defining a mouth and a
conduit,
wherein:
the mouth has a first diameter that is greater in size
than a diameter of the at least one ring;
the conduit extends from an interior portion of the
mouth to the emission hole; and
a plurality of bristles projecting from the at least partially
hollow body;
a means for coupling the brush to the at least one ring in
a manner that facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose,
wherein the means for coupling is configured to:
Appeal 2020-006413
Application 15/099,284

3
deform from a static shape to a deformed shape to
allow passage of the ring and the second end of the hose
into the mouth; and
retake the static shape upon the passage of the ring
and the second end of the hose, whereby retaking the
static shape retains the ring and the second end of the
hose within the mouth.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also rejects claims 5–7, 9–14,
and 17–20 as unpatentable over Bloink,2 Proffit,3 and Stephenson,4 either
with or without additional prior art.5 Final Act. 3–8.
OPINION
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 9 and 10 as indefinite for
reciting “the plurality of rings” because claim 5 from which these claims
depend only requires a singular ring. Final Act. 2.
Because Appellant advances no argument on appeal regarding this
rejection, we summarily sustain it.

2 US 2012/0255579 A1, published October 11, 2012.
3 US 3,872,533, issued March 25, 1975.
4 US 4,356,582, issued November 2, 1982.
5 US 2010/0011521 A1, published January 21, 2010 (Collins);
US 6,119,707, issued September 19, 2000 (Jordan).
Appeal 2020-006413
Application 15/099,284

4
Obviousness Rejections
Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner finds that Bloink discloses the
required “means for coupling the brush to the at least one ring in a manner
that facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose” of independent claim 5.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Bloink also discloses a substantially
similar limitation recited in independent claim 11. Id. at 5–6. To support
these factual findings, the Examiner points to purported structural
similarities of the coupling means described in the Specification and those
disclosed by Bloink. Final Act. 4–6. Specifically, the Examiner maps the
claimed “ring” to that depicted “around the exit end 30” in Bloink’s Figure 2
(reproduced below). Final Act. 3.

Bloink’s Figure 2 illustrates deflector assembly 34 with scrubber 42 and
“generally cylindrical” deflector 38 fitted to a ring encircling hose exit 30.
Bloink ¶¶ 24–26.
Appellant argues that Bloink’s deflector 38 is attached to the hose in a
manner that is “tight fitting that does not allow for movement.” Appeal Br.
6. Thus, according to Appellant, Bloink does not disclose the claimed
Appeal 2020-006413
Application 15/099,284

5
“means for coupling the brush to the at least one ring in a manner that
facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose.” Appeal Br. 5–7.
In response, the Examiner notes that the “means for coupling”
limitation falls under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and then points to Appellant’s
Specification which discloses various “means for coupling” such as “bolts,
buttons, buckles, ties, clamps, clasps, nails, pegs, slots and/or screws, or
other means such as adhesives, tapes, magnets or an extension of the mouth,
such as teeth.” Ans. 4.
After considering the opposing positions of Appellant and the
Examiner, we determine that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence supporting the obviousness rejections. Specifically, there is
insufficient evidence supporting a finding that Bloink’s ring at hose end 30
has the ability to rotate about the hose. Here, the Examiner acknowledges
that such ring rotation about a hose is one possible way to “facilitate[]
rotation,” but does not then establish that Bloink discloses a ring that rotates.
See Ans. 5 (“The ‘in a manner that facilitates rotation of the brush about the
hose’ recitation is understood to mean and include that the coupling means is
able to couple to a rotatable ring without interfering with or preventing the
rotation of the ring.” (emphases added)).
Moreover, even if such ring rotation would not be required to
“facilitate[] rotation of the brush about the hose” as required by the
independent claims, the Examiner has not established that Bloink’s deflector
38 is capable of rotating about the ring at exit 30. Indeed, Bloink appears
silent on this point and only indicates that deflector 38 is “snap-fitt[ed] . . .
onto exit 30.” Bloink ¶ 26. Here, we agree with Appellant that “[t]he
application of a prior art reference to a means- (or step-) plus-function
Appeal 2020-006413
Application 15/099,284

6
limitation requires that the prior art element perform the identical function
specified in the claim.” Reply Br. 5 (quoting MPEP § 2182). On this record,
there is insufficient evidence supporting a finding that Bloink’s deflector 38
is attached to hose exit 30 “in a manner that facilitates rotation . . . about the
hose” as required by each independent claim. We, therefore, reverse the
obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 5–7, 9–14, and 17–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed
9, 10 112(b) Indefiniteness 9, 10
5, 6, 9–12,
18
103 Bloink, Proffit,
Stephenson
5, 6, 9–12,
18
7, 13, 14, 17 103 Bloink, Proffit,
Stephenson, Collins
7, 13, 14,
17
19, 20 103 Bloink, Proffit,
Stephenson, Jordan
19, 20
Overall
Outcome
9, 10 5–7, 11–
14, 17–20
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-IN-PART