Andrew J. Wilson

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 15, 2019

13829060 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 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.
13/829,060 03/14/2013 Andrew J. Wilson 13-312 2258
20306 7590 08/15/2019
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BUI-HUYNH, DONOVAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1779
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW J. WILSON
Appeal 2018-008438
Application 13/829,060
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Angel Water, Inc.,
appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 9–11, 15, 19, 20,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson2 in

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Angel
Water, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Ferguson et al., US 2004/0211731 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004.
Appeal 2018-008438
Application 13/829,060

2
view of Hui3 and Eklund4 and adding Just5 or Sakata6 to reject claims 2–4,
6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 21, and 22.7
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to system for detecting water flow and
responsively triggering a pump to inject a chlorinating substance into
untreated water (see, e.g., claims 1 and 21) and the associated method (see,
e.g., claim 11). The system is illustrated in Figure 1. The detection is
accomplished using flow valve 116 located downstream from pump 106 and
contact reservoir 114. See Fig. 1. Flow valve 116 is electronically coupled
to pump 106 through triggering line 118. See Fig. 1. Flow valve 116 senses
the flow of fluid through the pipe and generates and transmits a control
signal through the triggering line 118 that triggers pump 106 to inject
chlorinating substance 104 into the untreated water at injection point 108.
See Fig. 1. Claim 1, with reference numerals from Figure 1, is illustrative:
1. A system comprising:
a unit of piping configured to connect to a source
of untreated water [102], wherein the untreated water is
pressurized;
a pump [106], in fluid communication with the
unit of piping, configured to inject a chlorinating substance

3 Hui, US 2011/0047690 A1, published Mar. 3, 2011.
4 Eklund et al., US 2010/0018990 A1, published Jan. 28, 2010.
5 Just, US 2011/0094949 A1, published Apr. 28, 2011.
6 Sakata et al., US 2005/0218054 A1, published Oct. 6, 2005.
7 Although the Examiner does not list Eklund when stating the grounds of
rejection for claims 21 and 22, the Examiner relies on Eklund in explaining
the rejection. Final Act. ¶¶ 52, 59, and 60. The error was harmless as
Appellant recognized that Eklund was applied. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2018-008438
Application 13/829,060

3
[104] into the unit of piping when remotely triggered by a flow
valve [116] that is downstream from the pump [106], the flow
valve [116] electronically coupled to the pump by a triggering
line [118];
a contact reservoir [114], in downstream fluid
communication with the unit of piping and the pump [106],
configured to receive the untreated water [102] and the
chlorinating substance [104], and to combine the untreated
water [102] and chlorinating substance [104] to produce
chlorinated water therefrom; and
the flow valve [116], in downstream fluid
communication with the contact reservoir [114] and
electronically coupled to the pump [106], configured to:
receive a flow of water from the contact reservoir
[114];
sense the flow through the flow valve [116]; and
in response to sensing the flow, generate and
transmit to the pump [106] an electronic control signal by way
of the triggering line [118] that remotely triggers the pump
[106] to inject the chlorinating substance [104] into the
untreated water [102], which causes the flow of water through
the flow valve [116] to become chlorinated.
Appeal Br. 17 (claims appendix).
OPINION
The issue on appeal is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in
the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion, based on the teachings of Hui and
Eklund, of modifying Ferguson’s system so it includes the required flow
valve downstream from Ferguson’s holding tank 10 (contact reservoir) with
the electronic coupling further required by the claims?
Appellant has identified such an error.
Appeal 2018-008438
Application 13/829,060

4
Ferguson discloses a method of monitoring and adjusting the level of
free chlorine using a metering pump as the chemical feeder 26 shown in
Figure 1 (Ferguson ¶ 63) and further discloses feeding the chlorinated water
to a contact reservoir (holding tank 10), but Ferguson does not include a
flow valve downstream from the contact reservoir that is electronically
coupled to the metering pump. Instead, Ferguson teaches monitoring the
level of free chlorine either in holding vessel 10, i.e., the contact reservoir,
or from a sample downstream of the point of mixing. Ferguson ¶ 63.
Ferguson discloses connecting a probe housing 22, which contains a
chlorine sensing electrode, downstream of the contact reservoir (Ferguson
¶ 70), but the sensor in probe 22 is not a flow valve. Nor is sensor 22
electronically coupled to the metering pump (chemical feeder) 26; it is
electronically connected to flow valve 44, which is upstream from the
metering pump 26 instead of downstream from the contact reservoir
(holding tank 10). Ferguson Fig. 1.
The Examiner finds that Hui discloses “the flow valve, in downstream
fluid communication with the contact reservoir and electronically coupled to
the pump.” Final Act. ¶ 15. But Hui does not teach a contact reservoir. Nor
is the adapter 20 of Hui’s Figure 5 a flow valve; it is a housing with a flow
meter switch 40 that sends a signal to a chlorinator or pool pump. Hui ¶¶ 38,
40, 47–49. As pointed out by Appellant, “[a]t the most, Hui teaches a flow
meter switch that activates the chlorinator in response to the flow of water.
There is simply no disclosure of the remaining limitations that the Examiner
has found in this reference.” Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner finds that Eklund discloses receiving a flow of water
from a contact reservoir. Final Act. ¶ 16. But Eklund teaches a flow control
Appeal 2018-008438
Application 13/829,060

5
device 18 downstream from a pump that pumps chemicals directly into the
water supplied from water tank 11. Eklund Fig. 2. Eklund shows only pipes
coupling the water tank, pump, and flow control device. Id. It is not clear
what structure the Examiner finds to be the contact reservoir. Moreover,
Eklund’s level sensor 14 senses the level of water in water tank 11; it does
not sense the flow of fluid through the flow valve.
None of the references teaches or suggests the required flow valve
that senses the flow through the valve. Nor does the combination of
references teach or suggest placing a flow valve that performs the required
sensing in downstream fluid communication with a contact reservoir and
electronically coupling it to a pump so that the flow valve remotely triggers
the pump to inject a chlorinating substance into untreated water. As the
Examiner has failed to provide adequate evidence or technical reasoning
supporting the obviousness of the structure required by claim 1 or the
obviousness of the process of claim 11, we do not sustain the rejection of
those claims nor the rejection of dependent claims 5, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, and
23.
The Examiner’s use of Just and Sakata to reject dependent claims
does not cure the deficiencies. Thus we do not sustain the rejection of any
claim.

DECISION
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 9–11,
15, 19, 20,
and 23
§ 103(a)
Ferguson, Hui,
and Eklund
1, 5, 9–11,
15, 19, 20,
and 23
Appeal 2018-008438
Application 13/829,060

6
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–4, 12, 13,
21, 22
§ 103(a)
Ferguson, Hui,
Eklund, and Just
2–4, 12,
13, 21, 22
6, 8, 16 § 103(a)
Ferguson, Hui,
Eklund, and
Sakata
6, 8, 16
Outcome 1–6, 8–13,
15, 16, 19–
23
REVERSED