Ex Parte Arcati

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2015

12256770 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

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.
12/256,770 10/23/2008 PETER ARCATI 288903-00491 5856
7590 02/05/2015
David C. Jenkins
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
44th Floor
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
EXAMINER
CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2015 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 PETER ARCATI
____________

Appeal 2013-000071
Application 12/256,770
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Arcati (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–5, 7–11, 14, and 15. Claims
6, 12, 13, 16, and 17 have been canceled. Br. 21,2. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief (hereafter “Br.”), filed
April 2, 2012.
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ames True
Temper, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2013-000071
Application 12/256,770
2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a “deck box hose reel having a direct
drive and an autotrack assembly.” Spec. 1, ll. 5–6 and Fig. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A direct drive hose reel assembly having an autotrack
device, said hose reel assembly comprising:
a housing assembly;
an autotrack device, said autotrack device coupled to said
housing assembly;
a basket assembly structured to be rotatably coupled to
said housing assembly, said basket assembly having an
elongated barrel with two axial hubs;
a crank assembly, said crank assembly fixedly coupled to
said barrel and structured to rotate said barrel relative to said
housing assembly;
said crank assembly including a crank arm and a transfer
assembly;
said crank arm structured to be rotatably coupled to said
housing assembly, said crank arm also coupled, and structured
to provide rotational motion, to said transfer assembly;
said transfer assembly coupled, and structured to provide
rotational motion, to said autotrack device;
said housing assembly includes a front side, back side,
first lateral side, and a second lateral side;
said autotrack device includes an elongated retaining
edge, a guide rod, and a follower assembly;
said autotrack device follower assembly having a housing
assembly with an opening therein sized to allow a hose to pass
therethrough;
said autotrack device retaining edge having a distal end;
said autotrack device follower assembly housing assembly
Appeal 2013-000071
Application 12/256,770
3

having a retaining edge groove structured to enclose a portion
of said autotrack device retaining edge distal end;
said guide rod and said retaining edge extending in a
spaced parallel relation, both said guide rod and said retaining
edge being coupled to, and extending between, said housing
assembly first lateral side and said housing assembly second
lateral side; and
said autotrack device follower assembly housing
assembly extending between said guide rod and said retaining
edge.

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Moon (US 6,877,687 B2, issued Apr. 12, 2005).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moon or Moon and either Kim (US
6,973,750 B1, issued Dec. 13, 2005), Hatcher (US
2007/0144584 A1, published June 28, 2007), or Mullen (US
7,575,188 B2, issued Aug. 18, 2009).
III. The Examiner rejected claims 8–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moon and Arlemark (US 4,174,809, issued
Nov. 20, 1979).
IV. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Moon, Ghio (US 5,388,609,
issued Feb. 14, 1995), and Anderson (US 7,438,250 B2, issued
Oct. 21, 2008).

Appeal 2013-000071
Application 12/256,770
4

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Moon’s guide rod 56 constitutes the claimed
“autotrack device retaining edge having a distal end.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner further finds that “the claimed distal end . . . is broad enough to
read on a surface end of the cylindrical rod.” Id. at 16. According to the
Examiner, a distal end of Moon’s cylindrical guide rod 56 is as shown in the
Figure below:

The Figure depicts the Examiner’s interpretation of the distal end of Moon’s
cylindrical guide rod 56. Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that “[a] surface of a cylindrical object cannot be a
‘distal end’ as all points on the perimeter are equidistant from the center.”
Br. 11. Thus, according to Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation of the
phrase “distal end” as a portion of the outer surface of Moon’s cylindrical
guide rod 56 is unreasonably broad. Id. at 16–17. We agree.
It is well established that during examination, “claims . . . are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Appeal 2013-000071
Application 12/256,770
5

specification, [ ] and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation and
quotations omitted). This means that the words of the claim must be given
their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this case,
although we agree with the Examiner that a portion of the outer surface of a
cylinder is “distal” because it is positioned away from an “origin or central
point,” i.e., longitudinal axis (see Ans. 16–17), nonetheless, it does not
constitute a “distal end” (emphasis added). More specifically, we agree with
Appellant’s definition of the term “end” as “[e]ither extremity3 of something
that has length.” See Br. 40, Appendix 2, Exhibit 7. Such an interpretation
is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which discloses retaining edge
104 as having a “distal end” 120 that engages groove 107 of follower
assembly 106. See Spec. 5, ll. 14–21 and Figs. 1 and 3. As such, because all
points on the portion of the outer surface of Moon’s cylindrical guide rod 56
are the same distance from the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical guide no
point is the “farthest or most remote” and thus, the outer surface of Moon’s
cylindrical guide rod 56 does not constitute a “distal end,” as called for by
claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s claim interpretation, which relies on
the view that a portion of the outer surface of Moon’s cylindrical guide rod
56 would meet the “distal end” limitation, is unreasonably broad in view of
the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “end” as it would be understood
by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we agree with Appellant

3 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “extremity” is “the
farthest or most remote part, section, or point.” Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed. 1997).
Appeal 2013-000071
Application 12/256,770
6

that Moon’s cylindrical guide rod 56 does not constitute a “retaining edge
having a distal end,” as called for by claim 1. Br. 10. As such, for the
foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
of claims 1–5 as anticipated by Moon.

Rejection II–IV
The Examiner’s modification of Moon’s hose reel device does not
remedy the deficiencies of Moon as described supra. See Ans. 6. Neither
do the disclosures of Kim, Hatcher, Mullen, Arlemark, Ghio, and Anderson,
as applied by the Examiner. See id. at 7–15. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth above, we likewise do not sustain Rejections II–IV.

SUMMARY
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–11,
14, and 15.

REVERSED

pgc