Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14612617 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/612,617 02/03/2015
151692 7590 09/27/2018
Robert L. Walter
Beusse, Wolter, Sanks & Maire PLLC
390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 2500
Orlando, FL 32801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald D. Brown
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.
12268-004 9687
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
rwolter@bwsmiplaw.com
patents@bwsmiplaw.com
sleonard@bwsmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD D. BROWN, DAVID J. ROBINSON,
MICHAEL G. QUINOY, and JAMES S. AMRHEIN 1
Appeal2017-008642
Application 14/612,617
Technology Center 3700
Before: BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JILL D. HILL, and JEFFREY A.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronald D. Brown et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8-10,
12-15, and 18-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Aeroclave LLC. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 stand objected to, but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 5.
Appeal2017-008642
Application 14/612,617
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 8 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, represents the claimed invention.
1. A decontamination system on-board a vehicle,
compnsmg:
a reservoir secured on-board a vehicle and containing a
disinfectant solution;
a pressurized air supply secured on-board the vehicle;
one or more nozzles secured on-board the vehicle and in
fluid communication with the reservoir and the pressurized air
supply, wherein at least one nozzle is mounted within an
interior space of the vehicle;
one or more pumps secured on-board the vehicle and the
one or more pumps are in fluid communication with the
reservoir and the one or more nozzles; and
a programmable controller in signal communication with
the one or more pumps and pressurized air supply to activate
the one or more pumps and pressurized air supply to deliver the
disinfectant solution and pressurized air to the one or more
nozzles, wherein the solution is dispersed in atomized form in
the interior space of the vehicle to be decontaminated.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as anticipated by Peterson (US 2001/0038040 Al, pub.
Nov. 8, 2001). Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 1-3, 8, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bryan (US 2002/0030117 Al, pub. Mar. 14,
2002) and Lenz (US 2011/0316302 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2011). Final Act. 4.
2
Appeal2017-008642
Application 14/612,617
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 18 anticipated by Peterson
The Examiner finds that Peterson discloses, inter alia, a
decontamination system comprising: "[a] reservoir 120 on-board a vehicle
210 and containing a disinfectant solution (finish products)." Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has "unreasonably and over
broadly interpreted 'disinfectant solution."' Appeal Br. 4. According to
Appellants, the Examiner interpreted disinfectant solution to encompass
solutions used at a car wash to detail automobiles, whereas "the broadest
reasonable interpretation for 'disinfectant solution' is a solution that kills
[ microorganisms such as] viruses, bacteria and antimicrobial agents or
compounds." Id. (citing Spec. ,r 3, 23; Dictionary of Chemistry, D.W.
Sharp, 1990, p. 143 (defining disinfectants as "[m]aterials which destroy
microorganisms but not spores. Chlorine and hypochlorites ( chlorates (I))
are examples"). Appellants further contend that the Examiner's position that
the term "disinfectant" can be defined as "any chemical agent used chiefly
on inanimate objects to destroy or inhibit the growth of harmful organisms"
(Ans. 4) is arbitrary and inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. Reply
Br. 2.
While pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, that interpretation must not only be reasonable, but must be
"consistent with the specification." See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The Examiner's interpretation of "disinfectant," which the Examiner
considers to be broad enough to include the car detailing solutions disclosed
in Peterson, is too broad to be consistent with Appellants' Specification.
3
Appeal2017-008642
Application 14/612,617
Appellants' Specification states that the claimed invention is directed to
decontamination systems for the interiors of ambulances, fire-rescue
vehicles, law enforcement vehicles, etc. Spec. ,r 3. It is unreasonable to find
that Peterson's solution, which can include tire treatment, paint wax, and
windshield water repellant, would be understood by one skilled in the art to
be consistent with a decontamination solution for the interior of the vehicle.
We adopt Appellants' interpretation of disinfectant solution, which is
consistent with their Specification. Appeal Br. 4. For this reason, we do not
sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II: Claims 1-3, 8, 15, 19, 20 obvious over Bryan and Lenz
The Examiner finds that Bryan discloses, inter alia, a
decontamination system comprising: "a reservoir 18 on-board a vehicle 1
and containing a disinfectant solution (insecticide)." Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Bryan does not disclose a disinfectant
solution. Appeal Br. 7.
Given the Examiner's proposed interpretation of "disinfectant
solution" as "a chemical solution used to destroy or inhibit the growth of
harmful organisms," the Examiner finds that Bryan's insecticide kills
mosquitos, which are harmful organisms, and therefore constitutes a
disinfectant. Ans. 7.
As explained above, we adopt Appellants' proposed construction of
"disinfectant solution" as "a solution that kills [ microorganisms such as]
viruses, bacteria and antimicrobial agents or compounds." Appeal Br. 4.
(citing Spec. ,r 3, 23; Dictionary of Chemistry, D.W. Sharp, 1990, p. 143
( defining disinfectants as "[ m ]aterials which destroy microorganisms but not
spores. Chlorine and hypochlorites ( chlorates (I)) are examples")). Given
4
Appeal2017-008642
Application 14/612,617
this claim construction, and because the Examiner did not find that Bryan's
insecticide kills viruses, bacteria and antimicrobial agents or compounds, we
do not sustain Rejection II.
DECISION
We REVERSE the pending rejections.
REVERSED
5