Ex Parte Breault et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2016

13451964 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/451,964
31217 7590
Henkel Corporation
One Henkel Way
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
04/20/2012
09/09/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John P. BREAULT
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.
LC-675/PCT/US 3709
EXAMINER
CHEYNEY, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2016 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):
rhpatentmail@henkel.com
trish.russo@henkel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN P. BREAULT, ANDREW BARDON,
and KARL E. GABRIELSON
Appeal2014-009778
Application 13/451,9641
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final Decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Henkel Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009778
Application 13/451,964
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 19 are independent, with claims 2-17 depending from
claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced
below:
1. An anti-drip valve for precision dispensing fluid from a
cartridge; comprising:
a y-shaped anti-drip valve body including a vertical part and
an angled part, said vertical part has a vertical channel
therethrough and said angled part with an angled channel
therethrough, said angled channel extending from said vertical
channel, said vertical part including a top section, middle section
and bottom section, said top section extending from a top open
end to said middle section, said middle section extending from
said top section to said bottom section, said bottom section
extending from said middle section to said bottom opened end,
said vertical part having varying diameters;
a poppet having a rod with a mushroom shaped end for
preventing dripping, said poppet extending through said vertical
channel and beyond said top open end and said bottom open end,
said poppet is vertically movable within said vertical channel to
provide for controlled flow of fluid therethrough; and
a dispensing tip attached to said external surface of said
bottom section, said dispensing tip having an entrance path, and
wherein said end of said poppet selectively plugs and lifts from
said entrance path.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rashidi (US 6,375,096 Bl, iss. Apr. 23, 2002) and
Soudan (US 5,375,743, iss. Dec. 27, 1994);
2
Appeal2014-009778
Application 13/451,964
2. Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rashidi, Soudan, and Schindler (US 4,363,429, iss.
Dec. 14, 1982);
3. Claims 4---6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rashidi, Soudan, and Tittemore (US 1,788,810, iss. Jan.
13, 1931);
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rashidi, Soudan, Schindler, and Graffin (US 5,816,456, iss. Oct. 6,
1998); and
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rashidi, Soudan, Schindler, Graffin, and Tittemore.
OPINION
Claims 1 and 19 are each directed to an "anti-drip valve" and recite "a
valve body," "a poppet," and "a dispensing tip." The Examiner finds that
Rashidi teaches the "valve body" and the "poppet," and acknowledges that
Rashidi fails to teach the "dispensing tip." Final Act. 3, 7. The claims
require that the "dispensing tip ha[s] an entrance path" and is "attached to
said external surface of said bottom section" of the valve body, and that an
"end of said poppet selectively plugs and lifts from said entrance path." The
Examiner finds that Soudan teaches a dispensing tip having the features
recited in the claims and proposes combining Soudan's teachings with those
of Rashidi. Id. at 2-3, 7. Specifically, the Examiner cites Soudan's threaded
cap 13 as corresponding to the recited "dispensing tip." Id.
Appellants respond that Soudan's threaded cap 13 is not a "dispensing
tip," and certainly does not include the features of the dispensing tip recited
3
Appeal2014-009778
Application 13/451,964
in the claims. App. Br. 6-9. Specifically, Appellants note that Soudan's
"cap 13 does not receive fluid from the core" (i.e., it does not define an
entrance path). Id. at 7. We agree, and note that the Examiner does not even
attempt to explain how Soudan's threaded cap 13 defines the required
entrance path and, instead, simply concludes that the entrance path is
present. See Final Act. 3 (citing Soudan, Figs. 5, 6). Only Figure 6 of
Soudan is reproduced below, as Figures 5 and 6 each illustrate the same
metering gun in Soudan, just in different operating conditions. Soudan, 4:9-
11.
15 35
FIG. 6
21
23
Figure 6 illustrates Soudan's metering gun.
As seen above, threaded cap 13 does not include an entrance path.
Soudan describes its metering apparatus as having core 3 defining an axial
bore 4 that "is traversed by a valve rod 8 sliding along the bore" from "a first
position in which reactants can flow through the said first and second radial
4
Appeal2014-009778
Application 13/451,964
feed orifices 5, 6 into the mixing chamber and a second position which
closes off the said feed orifices and prevents the flow of the reactants
towards the mixing chamber." Soudan, 4:24--31. Accordingly, the
Examiner has failed to establish sufficiently that Soudan teaches the
"dispensing tip" recited in the claims.
The additional rejections of the dependent claims do not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner has
failed to establish sufficiently that claims 1-17 and 19 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17 and
19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
5