Ex Parte Abreu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

13470033 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/470,033 05/11/2012 Joeseph Anthony Abreu
23616 7590 05/04/2016
NEWHOPE LAW, PC
CLEMENT CHENG, ESQ.
4522 Katella A venue
#200
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
Environmental
Containment
CONFIRMATION NO.
8025
EXAMINER
RO HRH OFF, DANIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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 JOSEPH ANTHONY ABREU
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033 1
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies himself, Joseph Anthony Abreu, as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and is reproduced below:
1. An environmental containment system comprising:
a. a wall frame for mounting to a wall, wherein the wall
frame has a left section and a right section, wherein the
wall frame has a top section and a bottom section, wherein
the wall frame extends horizontally from a vertical plane
and has a wall side opening and a working side opening;
b. a suction opening formed on the wall frame;
c. a filter mounted to a filter opening formed on the wall
frame;
d. a pair of mounting brackets spaced apart horizontally at a
set predetermined distance, wherein the pair of mounting
brackets includes a right mounting bracket and a left
mounting bracket, wherein the right mounting bracket has
at least one right screw opening, and wherein the left
mounting bracket has at least one left screw opening,
wherein the pair of mounting brackets are mounted to an
inside surface of the wall frame;
e. an access door mounted to the wall frame at a top opening;
f. a hoop system connecting to the working side opening;
and
g. a glove bag configured to mount to the hoop system,
wherein the glove bag has a pair of gloves extending into
the glove bag.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Fara (US 6,973,997 B2, iss. Dec. 13, 2005), Browning (US
6,149,252, iss. Nov. 21, 2000), Truelove (US 5,884,989, iss. Mar. 23, 1999),
and Lemon (US 5,062,871, iss. Nov. 5, 1991);
2
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033
2. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, and Natale (US 4,604,111, iss. Aug.
5, 1986);
3. Claims 9-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, and Miller (US 4,753,367,
iss. June 28, 1988); and
4. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, Natale, and Miller.
OPINION2
Obviousness over Fara, Browning, Truelove, and Lemon
Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 11-14 as a group. 3 App. Br. 5-9;
Reply Br. 2. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-5 and 11-14
stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to "[a]n environmental containment system." The
Examiner finds that Fara teaches an environmental containment system
including some of the elements recited in the claim, but does not teach
specifically the "suction opening," the "pair of mounting brackets," the
"hoop system," or the "glove bag" recited in the claim. Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner finds that Browning teaches a suction opening, Truelove teaches a
pair of mounting brackets, and Lemon teaches a hoop system and glove bag,
2 Appellant includes an affidavit in the Evidence Appendix of the Appeal
Brief. App. Br. 16. Appellant, however, never references that affidavit in its
arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 Appellant additionally includes comments regarding claims 2 and 5 under
the heading for the rejection addressing claims 6-8. See App. Br. 9-10. To
the extent those comments can be considered argument, they do not allege
any error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 or 5.
3
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033
and provides rationale for modifying Fara to include those features. Id. at 3-
4.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings or challenge the
Examiner's rationale for combining the teachings of the references asserted
in the rejection. See App. Br. 5-9. Rather, Appellant's contentions are
based on arguments against the references individually, which do not
address the teachings relied on by the Examiner or the Examiner's proposed
combination of those teachings, and in some instances address limitations
that are not found in the claim. For example, Appellant argues that "Fara ...
does not teach an apparatus that is lightweight, small, and portable" and
"teaches a contained structure with only a small opening for a work area in
contrast to the present invention that has an open end as a work area" (id. at
6), Browning and Truelove are not for asbestos abatement (id. at 7-8), and
"Lemon ... does not teach attachment for wall applications because the
described structure shows it is used for ceiling work in large warehouse or
areas that could accommodate such a large apparatus" (id. at 8). Appellant
fails to explain, however, how the claim includes any limitation directed to
size, weight, or ability to transport the recited system or how the claim
includes a requirement that the system is designed "for asbestos abatement."
As for Lemon's alleged failure to "teach attachment for wall applications,"
the Examiner relies on Lemon only for the "hoop system" and "glove bag"
recited in the claim. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3. Appellant fails to allege any
error in the Examiner's findings regarding those limitations or the
Examiner's rationale to include those features in Fara.
Appellant also alleges that "[t]he present invention pocket
containment system actually teaches away from relying on a wheeled
4
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033
conveyance such as a dolly or rolling scaffold," "[t]he Fara reference teaches
away from using mounting brackets," and "Fara teaches away from the
present invention which is a small collapsible and portable unit." Id. at 6-7.
As noted above, Appellant does not point out any claim limitation directed
to size or the method by which the system can be transported. As for the
alleged teaching away from the use of mounting brackets, Appellant offers
no persuasive explanation to support its position. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (A reference does not teach away by merely
disclosing an alternative invention without criticizing, discrediting, or
otherwise discouraging investigation into the claimed invention.).
Accordingly, Appellant has failed to apprise us of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-14.
Obviousness over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, and Natale
Appellant argues claims 6-8 as a group. App. Br. 9. We select claim
6 as representative. Claims 7 and 8 stand or fall with claim 6.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and additionally recites "a second
filter mounted to a second filter opening formed on the wall frame." The
Examiner cites Natale as teaching this element and provides rationale for its
combination with the proposed modifications to Fara discussed above. Final
Act. 5. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Natale
or offer any comprehensible argument as to why the Examiner's rationale
for combining those teachings with those discussed above is flawed.
Accordingly, Appellant has failed to apprise us of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 6-8.
5
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033
Additional Grounds
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-14 and 18 as
obvious over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, and Miller, Appellant
argues those claims as a group. App. Br. 10-13. We select claim 10 as
representative of that group. Claims 9, 11-14, and 18 stand or fall with
claim 10.
As for the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-17 as obvious over Fara,
Browning, Truelove, Natale, Lemon, and Miller, Appellant argues those
claims as a group. App. Br. 10-13. We select claim 15 as representative of
that group. Claims 16 and 17 stand or fall with claim 15.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1, and additionally recites that "the
hoop system is formed of an outside ring and an inside ring, wherein the
inside ring has a ring groove for receiving a glove bag fold of the glove bag,
wherein the inside ring mates to the outside ring to retain the glove bag fold
between the inside ring and the outside ring." Claim 15 depends from claim
10 and additionally recites "a second filter mounted to a second filter
opening formed on the wall frame." The Examiner finds that Miller teaches
the additional limitations recited in claim 10 and provides rationale for
combining those teachings with the proposed modifications to Fara
discussed above. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Natale teaches the
additional limitation recited in claim 15 and provides rationale for the
combination of that teaching with the proposed modifications to Fara
discussed above. Id. at 7 (referring to discussion of claim 6). Appellant's
discussion of the rejection of claims 9-18 does not indicate which ground is
being addressed, nor does that discussion address any particular claim
limitation. Appellant's discussion of those claims also fails to dispute any of
6
Appeal2014-003949
Application 13/470,033
the Examiner's findings relative to the rejections. Appellant also fails to
challenge the Examiner's rationale for the proposed combination of
elements, other than alleging, generally, that "the Examiner, having studied
Applicant's disclosure, attempted to reconstruct the prior art by selecting
references having just 'this' feature and just 'that' feature. Nor has the
Examiner provided any motivation for combining teachings." App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, Appellant has failed to apprise us of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 9-18.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 11-14
as obvious over Fara, Browning, Truelove, and Lemon.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 6-8 as obvious
over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, and Natale.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-14 and 18 as
obvious over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Lemon, and Miller.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject and claims 15-17 as
obvious over Fara, Browning, Truelove, Natale, Lemon, and Miller.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7