Bradley Sansing

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020003583 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
15/206,731 07/11/2016 Bradley David Sansing 10663-002US1 9475
96039 7590 04/02/2021
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MELARAGNO, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
docketing@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte BRADLEY DAVID SANSING
__________

Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bradley
David Sansing. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 4, filed Dec. 17, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a multi-compartment
container.” Spec. 2:2. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A multi-compartment container comprised of:
a first and a second aerosol chamber proximate to one
another, wherein each of the first and second aerosol chamber
have a single outlet;
a spray nozzle having a single inlet; and
a spray nozzle retention device, wherein the spray nozzle
is operably coupled to the spray nozzle retention device such that
in a first position the spray nozzle having the single inlet is
fluidly engaged with only the single outlet of the first aerosol
chamber and the single outlet of the second aerosol chamber is
unconnected and in a second position the spray nozzle having the
single inlet disengages from the single outlet of the first aerosol
chamber, moves to separate the spray nozzle having the single
inlet from the single outlet of the first aerosol chamber, and
fluidly engages the spray nozzle having the single inlet with only
the single outlet of the second aerosol chamber by movement of
at least a portion of the spray nozzle retention device and wherein
the single outlet of the first aerosol chamber is unconnected in
the second position.

THE REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1, 6–11, 13, 14, 19–24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cornwell (US 2014/0014687 A1, published
Jan. 16, 2014).

2 In the Final Office Action, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.83(a). See Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 2–3, dated Apr. 22, 2019.
However, this objection is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See 37
C.F.R. § 1.181.
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

3
II. Claims 12 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cornwell.
III. Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cornwell and Lanzendoerfer (US 2005/0214333 A1,
published Sept. 29, 2005).
IV. Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cornwell, Lanzendoerfer, and Otomo (US 7,131,602 B2,
issued Nov. 7, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Anticipation by Cornwell
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of independent claim 14
or dependent claims 6–11, 13, 19–24, and 26 separate from those presented
for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–18. We select claim 1 as the
representative claim, and claims 6–11, 13, 14, 19–24, and 26 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner finds that Cornwell discloses a multi-compartment
container having all the limitations of claim 1, including a first aerosol
chamber (first chamber 704) and a second aerosol chamber (second chamber
705) proximate to one another, in which each of the first and second aerosol
chambers has a single outlet. Final Act. 3 (citing Cornwell Fig. 12). The
Examiner also finds that Cornwell discloses its container has a spray nozzle
(nozzle 706) with a single inlet (aperture 511). Id.; see also Cornwell Figs.
5–8. The Examiner further finds that Cornwell’s container includes a spray
nozzle retention device (valve assembly 502 or pushbutton actuator 701), in
which the spray nozzle is operably coupled to the spray nozzle retention
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

4
device. Final Act. 3 (citing Cornwell ¶ 37; Figs. 5, 6, 12). The Examiner
notes that Cornwell’s “valve stem with [an] inlet is rotated so as to ‘open a
pathway’ attaching the inlet in fluid communication to one of the containers
and disengaging it from the other container[],” and thus, according to the
Examiner, Cornwell’s container meets the connectivity, disengagement, and
separation limitations of claim 1. Id. (citing Cornwell ¶ 37; Figs. 5, 6, 12).
Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Cornwell discloses
claim 1’s limitations of: “in a first position[,] the spray nozzle having the
single inlet is fluidly engaged with only the single outlet of the first aerosol
chamber and the single outlet of the second aerosol chamber is
unconnected,” and
in a second position[,] the spray nozzle having the single inlet
disengages from the single outlet of the first aerosol chamber,
moves to separate the spray nozzle having the single inlet from
the single outlet of the first aerosol chamber, and fluidly engages
the spray nozzle having the single inlet with only the single outlet
of the second aerosol chamber by movement of at least a portion
of the spray nozzle retention device and wherein the single outlet
of the first aerosol chamber is unconnected in the second
position.
Appeal Br. 12 (quoting Claim 1) (emphases added); see also Reply Br. 3–9.3
Appellant argues that Cornwell’s figures show that “the nozzle assembly
and/or the blocking member is in contact with multiple ‘bags’ at any one
time.” Id. More particularly, Appellant argues that
Cornwell requires a nozzle assembly that comprises a blocking
member 105 that is constantly engaged with a plurality of bags
106 through the plurality of conduits 107A, 107B. The claimed
invention does not have a blocking member 105, as only one
aerosol chamber is connected with the spray nozzle having the

3 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Apr. 8, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

5
single inlet at any time, nor do the aerosol chambers of the
claimed invention stay in constant communication with the
nozzle assembly, as taught by Cornwell.
Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 13–18 (referencing Cornwell’s Figures 1, 4, 5,
7, 12).
As an initial matter, claim 1 does not preclude the presence of “a
blocking member.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based
on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Thus, Appellant’s contention that
“[t]he claimed invention does not have a blocking member” (Appeal Br. 13),
is unavailing.
Further, claim 1 requires “the single inlet [of the spray nozzle]
disengages from the single outlet of the first aerosol chamber,” “the single
inlet [of the spray nozzle] . . . moves to separate the spray nozzle having the
single inlet from the single outlet of the first aerosol chamber.” Appeal Br.
21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not recite that the spray
nozzle disengages or moves to separate the spray nozzle from the single
outlet of an aerosol chamber, this understanding is consistent with
Appellant’s disclosure, in which Figure 1 shows spray nozzle 106 having a
fixed portion 112 that is in constant contact with first aerosol chamber 102
and second aerosol chamber 104. See Spec. 8:9–11, Fig. 1. Thus,
Appellant’s suggestion that its container is different than Cornwell’s
container because Cornwell’s nozzle assembly “is in contact with multiple
‘bags’ at any one time” or “is constantly engaged with a plurality of bags”
(Appeal Br. 12), is also unavailing.
Furthermore, we note that the general operation of Appellant’s
container is similar to that of Cornwell’s container. Appellant’s
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

6
Specification discloses that “the moveable portion [of the spray nozzle
retention device] is configured to be rotated such that the spray nozzle can
be rotably disengaged from the operably engaged position with the first
aerosol chamber rotably engaged to the operably engaged position with the
second aerosol chamber.” Spec. 3:1–4 (emphases added) see also id. at
7:20–23 (disclosing, with respect to Figure 1, that “the moveable portion 110
may be configured to be rotated such that the spray nozzle 106 can be
rotably disengaged from the operably engaged position with the first aerosol
chamber 102 and rotably engaged to the operably engaged position with the
second aerosol chamber 104”).
Likewise, as the Examiner correctly points out, Cornwell’s “valve
stem with [an] inlet is rotated so as to ‘open a pathway’ attaching the inlet
in fluid communication to one of the containers and disengaging it from the
other container[].” Final Act. 3. In other words, Cornwell discloses (see
Figure 5 for example) a spray nozzle retention device (valve assembly 502)
that has a moveable portion (valve stem 504 along aperture 511 and circular
disk 508) that rotates in much the same manner as the components of
Appellant’s container. See Cromwell ¶ 37 (disclosing “a circular disk 508
axially coupled to the bottom of the valve stem 504 and operable to close off
the bottom of the valve stem 504, the circular disk 508 further operable to
rotate when the valve stem 504 is rotated”). Thus, Cromwell can be
regarded as disclosing a single inlet (aperture 511) that moves to separate a
spray nozzle having the single inlet from the single outlet of the first aerosol
chamber.
In regard to the specific language of claim 1, we note that Appellant
does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that defines the terms
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

7
“unconnected,” “disengages,” or “separate.” Appeal Br., passim. Appellant
directs us to portions of the Specification that recite these terms but only in
relation to the rotation of spray nozzle 106’s movable portion 110. Reply
Br. 3–4 (citing Spec. 7:10–8:11),4 7–8. Here, the Specification effectively
describes engagement and connection or movement of components of the
container to provide a fluid connection. See Spec. 7:10–8:11. We further
note that claim 1 recites “fluidly engaged” and “fluidly engages.” Appeal
Br. 21 (Claims App.). We thus construe the terms “unconnected,”
“disengages,” and “separate” as “fluidly unconnected,” “fluidly disengages,”
and “fluidly separate,” respectively. In other words, we construe these terms
in relation to fluid flow, i.e., in regard to completion of a fluid pathway,
which is consistent with the term “fluidly” as recited in claim 1.
In this case, the Examiner correctly finds that Cornwell’s figures
“clearly disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 14 in which his spray
nozzle has only a single inlet which is fluidly connected to only one aerosol
container at any one time.” Ans. 7–8.5 As Appellant recognizes, Cornwell
uses a blocking member. Appeal Br. 12. Cornwell’s blocking member 105
(or blocking member 407 or circular disk 508) blocks fluid flow at a
particular position and thus, there is no fluid engagement due to
unconnectivity. See Cornwell Figs. 1, 4–6, 12. Stated differently, due to the
blocking member being at a particular position, Cornwell’s spray nozzle’s
inlet is “fluidly unconnected,” “fluidly disengage[d],” and “fluidly
separate[d]” from the outlet of at least one of its chambers 704 and 705. See

4 Appellant references the corresponding paragraphs in the publication of the
subject application, rather than the Specification as filed.
5 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Feb. 20, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

8
Ans. 8 (The Examiner explaining that rotation of Cornwell’s circular disk
508 “allow[s] a user to select the first chamber 704 or second chamber
705.” (citing Cornwell ¶ 38)).
Based on this understanding, we agree with the Examiner and fail to
see how the fluid disengagement due to unconnectivity as disclosed for
Cornwell’s container is different than what is set forth in Appellant’s
Specification. See Ans. 11 (The Examiner explaining that Cornwell’s
requirement of a “blocking element” and the subject invention’s lack of
requirement of such a structure “does not obviate the fact[] . . . that
Cornwell’s spray nozzle has only a single inlet which is fluidly connected
to only one aerosol container at any one time.”); see also id. at 12. As such,
Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Cornwell. We further
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–11, 13, 14, 19–24, and 26,
which fall with claim 1.
Rejections II – IV Obviousness over Cornwell alone or in combination with
Lanzendoerfer or Lanzendoerfer and Otomo

Appellant relies on the same arguments presented above for claims 1
and 14 to rebut the rejections of claims 2–5, 12, 15–18, and 25. Appeal Br.
18–20. As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 14 as anticipated by Cornwell for the reasons
discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–
5, 12, 15–18, and 25 as unpatentable over the various combinations of cited
prior art.

Appeal 2020-003583
Application 15/206,731

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–11, 13,
14, 19–24, 26
102(a)(1) Cornwell 1, 6–11,
13, 14, 19–
24, 26

12, 25 103 Cornwell 12, 25
2, 3, 15, 16 103 Cornwell,
Lanzendoerfer
2, 3, 15, 16
4, 5, 17, 18 103 Cornwell,
Lanzendoerfer,
Otomo
4, 5, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–26

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