Ex Parte BLUM

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 7, 2019

14772034 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/772,034 09/01/2015
3624 7590 05/09/2019
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18th Floor
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerhard BLUM
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
SMBNEO-PT581 5791
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2019 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERHARD BLUM 1
Appeal2017-008176
Application 14/772,034
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1--4 and 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). Appellant presented argument at an oral hearing held on April 25,
2019.
We REVERSE.
1 Neoperl GmbH is identified as the real party in interest and also is the
applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008176
Application 14/772,034
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A tap aerator (1) having a mounting housing (2)
which is mountable on a water outlet of a sanitary outlet fitting
by a fastening ring (3), wherein the mounting housing (2) has
an outflow-side housing end face (5) with throughflow holes (6)
and wherein at least one insert part, which is configured as a jet
divider, is insertable into the mounting housing (2) and the jet
divider is configured as a diffusor (7) which interacts with a
diffusor ring (8), wherein, respectively on a largest outside
circumference thereof, the diffusor (7) and the diffusor ring (8)
have a ring-shaped holding region (7a, 8a), which acts as a
holding ring and is arranged at an edge, for securement in a
position of use, wherein the diffusor (7) and the diffusor ring
(8) are insertable, respectively, into the mounting housing up to
an insert stop, wherein the holding regions (7a, 8a) of the
diffusor (7) and of the diffusor ring (8) are arranged in the
position of use in the mounting housing (2) at different heights
and/or diameter planes relative to one another when viewed in
an axial direction, wherein the ring-shaped holding regions (7a,
8a) of the diffusor (7) and of the diffusor ring (8), which
interact as a jet divider by way of inner regions thereof, are
arranged so as to abut against one another in a contacting
manner in the axial direction without encompassing or
engaging around one another in an edge region and wherein the
largest outside diameter of the diffusor ring (8) and of its
holding region (8a) is as large as or smaller than the largest
outside diameter of the diffusor (7) and of the holding region
(7a) thereof, at least an outside edge of the ring-shaped holding
region (7a) of the diffusor (7) is stepped and the mounting
housing (2) comprises an undercut (10) for axially engaging
over the radially outwardly protruding step (11) of the
diffusor (7), said step (11) engages in the undercut (10) in a
positive-locking manner in the position of use.
Appeal Br. 9-10 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-008176
Application 14/772,034
REJECTI0N2
Claims 1--4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zoller (US 2011/0278380 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zoller discloses a tap
aerator including a housing (fractionating plate 4, housing 5), a jet divider
configured as a diffuser (sieve 2), a diffuser ring (sloping surface 9 of
throughflow regulator 3), and ring-shaped holding regions on the diffuser
(sieve 2) and diffuser ring (rising sloping surface 9) as "circular peripheral
region of elements 2, 9." Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Zoller does
not disclose sieve 2 as having a stepped circular peripheral region along its
outer edge as claimed, but Zoller discloses fractionating plate 4 with such a
stepped outer edge for connection to housing 5. Id. at 3. The Examiner then
determines that it would have been obvious in view of this teaching "to have
stepped the outside edge of diffuser [sieve] 2 in the device of Zoller for
detachable connection to fractionating plate 4." Id. at 3; Ans. 4---6.
Appellant argues that Zoller does not teach a stepped outside edge and
the Examiner improperly takes Official Notice of that fact. Appeal Br. 7.
This argument is not persuasive because it does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's determination it would have been obvious to modify Zoller's
sieve 2 to have a stepped outside edge based on Zoller' s teaching of this
stepped feature for the adjacent throughflow regulator 3. See Ans. 4.
2 The Examiner indicates that claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2017-008176
Application 14/772,034
The Examiner's determination is supported by a rational underpinning
because Zoller teaches outer edge of sieve 2 connects to fractionating plate 4
by a snap fit. Zoller ,r 22. Zoller illustrates the inner surface of fractionating
plate 4 with an undercut that engages the outer edge of sieve 2 as Appellant
admits. Id., Figs. 3, 4; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner reasons that the sieve's
outer edge must be stepped to provide a snap fit or that a stepped edge would
been obvious to use to connect the sieve detachably to fractionating plate 4
via a snap fit connection. See Final Act. 3, 5. Zoller's teaching to provide a
snap fit connection between sieve 2 and fractionating plate 4 also provides a
rational underpinning to modify sieve 2 to include a stepped outer edge.
Appellant also argues that inwardly rising slope 9 of throughflow
regulator 3 does not disclose a ring as claimed. Appeal Br. 5---6. Appellant
argues that an ordinary meaning of "ring" is "a circular band for holding,
connecting, hanging, pulling, packing, or sealing," and this meaning is
consistent with the disclosure in the Specification and drawings. Id. at 5;
Reply Br. 4 ( quoting Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
The Examiner reasonably interprets sloped surface 9 as a ring. Final
Act. 2; Ans. 3. Zoller discloses sloped surface 9 as having a ring-shaped
outer edge and control gap 10 of space formed through an interior portion of
this element to make outer sloped surface 9 into a ring-shaped, circular band.
The Examiner reasonably finds that the outer edge of sloped surface 9 is
configured as a ring because it forms a circular band or body like a rim of a
wheel. Ans. 3. We agree with Appellant that an ordinary meaning of ring is
"a circular band." Reply Br. 4. However, we also agree with the Examiner
that Zoller discloses throughflow regulator 3 and its ring-shaped sloped
surface 9 as such a circular band.
4
Appeal2017-008176
Application 14/772,034
Finally, Appellant argues that Zoller does not teach or suggest ring-
shaped holding regions of the diffuser and diffuser ring "are arranged so as
to abut against one another in a contacting manner in the axial direction" as
claimed. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner responds that Zoller
discloses a diffuser (sieve 2) and diffuser ring (sloped surface 9) arranged so
as to abut against one another in a contacting manner in the axial direction
because "the sloped surface 9 and the sieve 2 are stacked on top of each
other with the sieve 2 being on top, see figure 4." Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that Zoller teaches sieve 2 and sloped
surface 9 in a stacked relationship, i.e., arranged on top of each other in
Figures 3 and 4. Zoller teaches to snap fit sieve 2 into fractionating plate 4
to keep sloped surface 9 and throughflow regulator 3 "in place in the interior
space 6." Zoller ,r 22. However, Zoller also discloses that sloping surface 9
and upstream sieve 2 are "distanced from one another." Id. ,r 23. Figures 3
and 4 of Zoller illustrate the ring-shaped edges of sieve 2 and sloped surface
9 distanced from one another with a space/ gap between them. Therefore, the
Examiner's finding that Zoller discloses ring-shaped edges of sieve 2 and
sloped surface 9 arranged so as to abut one another in a contacting manner is
not supported by a preponderance of evidence. 3 Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or claims 2--4 and 6 which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1--4 and 6.
REVERSED
3 Appellant discloses this abutting, contacting arrangement in Figures 3
and 5-7. See Spec. ,r 30.
5