C.H. & I. Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020006401 (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.
16/653,699 10/15/2019 Robert D. Thibodeau CHI-98885 9329
24201 7590 04/02/2021
FULWIDER PATTON LLP
111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1510
Long Beach, CA 90802
EXAMINER
SHAW, BENJAMIN R
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):
docketla@fulpat.com
eOfficeAction2@fulpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT D. THIBODEAU, ERIC A. WILLIAMS, and
LAWRENCE M. LEVENSTEIN
Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JILL D. HILL, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, 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 1–4, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as C.H. & I.
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention relates to a system for dispensing various
materials “from a vessel that can be emptied and refilled repeatedly, without
intervening cleaning of the vessel and its components.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1,
the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A refillable system for transferring material, the
system comprising:
a vessel having a longitudinal axis, an inner wall, and an
arrestor, and a first end having a material inlet and outlet
manifold;
a force transfer device disposed within the vessel, the
force transfer device including, (a) a crown; (b) a cylindrical
member having a longitudinal axis substantially parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the vessel, wherein the cylindrical member
includes an outer wall that is parallel to the inner wall of the
vessel, and (c) a conical thruster attached to the cylindrical
member;
the arrestor of the vessel positioned at the first end of the
vessel and configured to conform to the shape of the thruster;
and
an omniphobic coating applied to the vessel's inner wall
and arrestor to change a drag profile of a moving fluid at the
inner wall and arrestor.

Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
EXAMINER’S REJECTION
Claims 1–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Levenstein2 and Echterling.3 Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–4.

2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2011/0315718 A1, pub. Dec. 29, 2011
(“Levenstein”).
3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2013/0074982 A1, pub. Mar. 28, 2013
(“Echterling”).
Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1–4 as a group. See Appeal Br. 2 (“Claim 1
is representative of the subject matter of the present application.”); see also
id. at 5–6 (arguing only claim 1). The Examiner finds that Levenstein
discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except the “omniphobic coating”
limitation. See Final Act. 5. Pointing to Echterling, the Examiner finds “it
is old and well known in the art of dispensing to apply an omniphobic, or
superomniphobic coating (NeverWet) to components of the dispenser.” Id.
(citing Echterling ¶ 33). Based on those findings, the Examiner reasons that
a skilled artisan would have deemed it obvious “to modify Levenstein by
coating the vessel’s inner wall and first arrestor with NeverWet (a
superomniphobic coating) as taught by Echterling, inherently changing a
drag profile of a moving fluid at the inner wall and arrestor, to aid
preventing material from adhering to the those parts, keeping them clean and
dry.” Id. at 5–6.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Levenstein. See Appeal Br. 3 (acknowledging that “Levenstein teaches the
system without the coating,”). Nor does Appellant dispute that Echterling
teaches applying an omniphobic coating to the components of a system for
dispensing various types of materials. See id. at 5; see also id. at 6
(acknowledging that “Applicant does not claim to have invented
hydrophobic coatings or omniphobic coatings.”). Rather, according to
Appellant, Echterling is concerned solely with “the drying out of material at
the dispensing valve,” as opposed to the inner walls of a fluid-containing
vessel such as Levenstein’s. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 4 (“Echterling
only speaks to the benefit of not drying out the material at the fluid exit.”).
Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699

4
We disagree with Appellant’s characterization of Echterling’s
teachings. Echterling makes clear not that the coating omniphobic coating
prevents drying of material at the dispense valve, but also that the coating
may be applied “inside the containers that store the material” so as to
“amplify repellency of any fluid material” and “prevent adhesion of any
material to the treated surface.” Echterling ¶ 33. Nowhere do we discern
that Levenstein’s dispenser system would suffer from the benefit of having
an omniphobic coating applied to the inner surfaces of the dispenser’s vessel
and arrestor. Indeed, Levenstein’s stated objective is “to deliver
contamination free streams from a vessel that can be emptied and refilled
repeatedly, without intervening cleaning of the vessel or its components.”
Levenstein ¶ 2; see also ¶ 8 (same). That evidence supports that a skilled
artisan reasonably would have been led to seek the benefit of Echterling’s
omniphobic coating for the inner surfaces of Levenstein’s dispenser in an
effort to facilitate cleanliness and prevent cross-contamination of the
dispenser’s inner surfaces from previously dispensed materials.
Appellant also mischaracterizes Echterling by arguing that the
“containers” referenced in paragraph 33 of Echterling denote “container 22,”
or “jugs,” which sit “downstream from the pump, or outside the filling
machine itself” and into which the fluid is ultimately dispensed. Reply Br.
2–3 (citing Echterling, Fig. 3). That is simply not accurate. Paragraph 33
clearly references “containers that store the material,” which, as disclosed in
Echterling’s immediately preceding paragraphs, include “containers of
material stored within individual compartments 17,” and from which “[t]he
material is then transferred to the manifold valve system 23 and eventually
into the receiving container 22, which may sit on a scale 24.” Echterling
Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699

5
¶¶ 22–23, Fig. 4 (emphasis added). Those disclosures unequivocally show
that Echterling’s coating is applied to storage containers 17 located upstream
of dispensing valve 23, not receiving container 22 located downstream of
dispensing valve 23. Thus, we reject Appellant’s arguments to the contrary.
Appellant also asserts that the Examiner’s combination of “an anti-
drying coating” with Levenstein’s dispenser fails to consider “how this
would affect the performance of the system of Levenstein.” Appeal Br. 5.
We disagree. The Examiner’s finding that Echterling’s coating would “aid
[in] preventing material from adhering” to the coated surfaces of
Levenstein’s vessel, while also “keeping them clean and dry,” shows that the
Examiner meaningfully considered how the application of Echterling’s
coating would affect the performance of the Levenstein’s dispenser. Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4. As such, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
reason for the asserted combination, which is nothing more than using a
known technique (an omniphobic coating) to improve a similar device (a
container from which material is dispensed via a valve) in the same way
(provide contamination-free delivery of the material from the container and
its associated components).
Appellant next argues that Echterling’s coating “would mix with, and
potentially contaminate, the material being transported in the Levenstein
device.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 4–5 (essentially same argument).
But Appellant’s argument is short on evidentiary support and long on
speculation. See id. The record contains no evidence that the addition of
Echterling’s coating could potentially contaminate the material within
Levenstein’s vessel. Appellant’s argument is nothing more than conclusory
attorney argument, which cannot take the place of evidence. Indeed, as the
Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699

6
Examiner correctly notes (see Ans. 6), both Echterling and Levenstein are
directed to dispensing materials such as foods and pharmaceuticals, which
reasonably coveys to a skilled artisan that the vessel from which they are
dispended must be contaminant-free for obvious safety reasons. See
Echterling ¶ 34; Levenstein ¶ 3. Given that evidence, we reject the notion
that a skilled artisan would surmise that Echterling’s coating on Levenstein’s
vessel might somehow lead to contamination of the contents within the
vessel.
Appellant also faults Echterling as being “silent on system efficiency
and energy,” more specifically, on how “to improve the system’s overall
efficiency and decrease the energy required to move the materials/fluids into
and out of the system.” Appeal Br. 5. We fail to see the relevancy of this
argument. Although Appellant’s Specification may speak to the efficiency
and energy required of the system, the claims do not. And we will not read
limitations from the Specification into the claims, which recites that the
coating “change a drag profile of a moving fluid.” As the Examiner
correctly finds, Echterling’s disclosure of applying the NeverWet coating,
which amplifies repellency and prevents adhesion, to the surface of a fluid-
containing vessel amounts to “inherently changing a drag profile of a
moving fluid.” Final Act. 5. Appellant does not dispute that finding. Thus,
we are unmoved by Appellant’s attempt to read more into the claim than is
actually recited.
Finally, Appellant contends to have “discovered . . . unexpected and
superior results from the application of [coating] materials to the vessel
walls and the force transfer device [of Levenstein’s system]” and that “[n]o
prior art reference . . . teaches or suggests this benefit.” Appeal Br. 6. We
Appeal 2020-006401
Application 16/653,699

7
disagree. Appellant points to no evidence in support of this contention. See
id. Nor can it given Echterling’s express disclosure that superhydrophobic
coatings, such as NeverWet, when applied to a fluid-containing vessel,
provides the superior benefit of preventing materials from adhering to the
inner surfaces and parts of the dispenser vessel. See Echterling ¶ 33. Thus,
Appellant’s argument lacks persuasive weight.
In sum, we perceive no error in the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning. Because the Examiner provides sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinning to support the application of Echterling’s coating for the inner
parts and surfaces of a dispensing system to similar aspects of Levenstein’s
dispensing system, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Levenstein and Echterling.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 103 Levenstein,
Echterling
1–4
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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