Ex Parte Dean

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2014

12832300 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

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.
12/270,891 11/14/2008 Peter Arcati 288903-00459-1 3020
7590 12/19/2014
David C. Jenkins
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
EXAMINER
MURPHY, KEVIN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2014 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 and ERIC HYP
____________________

Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JILL D. HILL, and MICHAEL L. WOODS
Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Arcati and Eric Hyp (“Appellants”) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellants’ invention is directed to an easily accessible inlet
assembly for a hose reel. See, e.g., Spec. 1, ll. 8–9. Claims 1 and 11 are the
independent claims and claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis on a key
disputed claim limitation.
1. An inlet conduit assembly for a hose reel assembly,
said hose reel assembly having a frame assembly and a basket
assembly, said frame assembly having an inner side and an
outer side, said frame assembly structured to support said
basket assembly, said basket assembly having a barrel
structured to support a hose and having a barrel body with an
outer surface and a lateral side, a basket assembly conduit
having an inlet end and an outlet end and extending within said
barrel body, said basket assembly conduit inlet end disposed at
said barrel body lateral side and said basket assembly conduit
outlet end disposed at said barrel body outer surface, said inlet
assembly comprising:
a generally cylindrical, elongated body with first end, a
second end, and a retaining clip groove extending at least
partially circumferentially about said inlet conduit body, said
inlet conduit second end sized to fit within said basket assembly
conduit inlet end;
a clip assembly including an elongated body having a
first end, a pivot point, a clip structure, and a second end;
said clip assembly body pivotally coupled to said hose
reel assembly frame assembly adjacent to said basket assembly
conduit inlet end and structured to pivot in a plane of motion,
said clip assembly body accessible from said frame assembly
outer side;
wherein, when said inlet conduit body second end is
pivotally coupled with said basket assembly conduit inlet end,
said clip assembly body is structured to pivot in a plane aligned
with said inlet conduit body retaining clip groove; and
wherein said clip assembly body moves between a first
position, wherein said clip structure does not engage said inlet
conduit body retaining clip groove, and a second position,
Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891

3
wherein said clip structure engages said inlet conduit body
retaining clip groove.

THE REJECTIONS
(i) The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cowley (US 3,587,626, issued
June 28, 1971). Ans. 2.
(ii) The Examiner rejects claims 6–9 and 16–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowley and Treverton
(US 6,913,294 B2, issued July 5, 2005). Ans. 9.
(iii) The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 6–9 and 16–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowley and Rosenberg
(US 5,628,531 issued May 13, 1997).1 Ans. 11.

1 In the Final Office Action, on which Appellants’ Appeal Brief is based, the
Examiner also rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement, and objected
to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a). Final Act. 2–4 (dated Dec. 30,
2011). The written description rejection and drawing objection were
subsequently withdrawn by the Examiner, however, in the Answer. Ans. 12.
Accordingly, we do not address the withdrawn rejection and objection in this
Decision.
Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection (i) - Claims 1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20 as Anticipated by Cowley
In rejecting independent claim 1, including its dependent claims 2–10,
the Examiner finds that Cowley discloses, inter alia, an inlet conduit
assembly for hose reel assembly 10, having frame assembly 30, 32 and an
inlet assembly that comprises clip assembly 120. Ans. 2–3 (citing Cowley,
Figs. 5 and 7).2 The Examiner further finds that Cowley discloses, inter
alia, clip assembly 120 having body 122 pivotally coupled to the hose reel
assembly frame via screw 126. Id. (citing Cowley, col. 3, ll. 49–63). In
particular, the Examiner finds that Cowley discloses that only one of the two
screws 126 may be fastened to form a hinge and pivot point, and that “the
clip structure is fixed with the hose reel frame assembly at least via the tooth
123 of member 124,” thereby meeting the claim limitation, “said clip
assembly body pivotally coupled to said hose reel assembly frame
assembly.” See id; see also Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis omitted).
Similarly, in rejecting independent claim 11, including its dependent
claims 12–20, the Examiner also relies on Cowley for disclosing, inter alia,
hose reel assembly 10 comprising frame assembly 30, 32 and clip assembly
120, which has clip assembly body 122 “pivotally coupled [to the hose reel
assembly] via screw 126 as the clip structure is fixed with the hose reel
frame assembly at least via the tooth 123 of member 124.” Id. at 6–7 (citing
Cowley, col. 3. ll. 49–63 and Figs. 5 and 7) (emphasis omitted).

2 Cowley refers to 10 as hose reel unit, 30 as handle member, 32 as bottom
rest member, 26 as axle member, 120 as retainer clip, 122 and 124 as similar
arcuate portions, and 126 as sheet metal screws.
App
App

finds
be co
the s
inclu
eal 2012-0
lication 12
We note
that “Cow
upled tog
econd scre
Figures
Figures
ding “clip
10941
/270,891
that in rej
ley specif
ether by on
w.” Ans.
5 and 7 of
5 and 7 de
assembly
ecting ind
ically disc
e screw [
13 (citing
Cowley ar
pict “hose
body” 122
5
ependent c
loses that
126] and c
Cowley, co
e reproduc
reel assem
, and scre
laims 1 an
the two pl
oupled to
l. 3, ll. 58
ed below
bly” 10, “
ws 126.
d 11, the E
ates [122,
axle 26 pr
–63).
:

clip assem
xaminer
124] may
ior to using

bly” 120,

Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891

6
In contesting the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants assert that “Cowley
fails to disclose a clip that is pivotally coupled to the frame assembly,” as
recited in independent claims 1 and 11. See Appeal Br. 14 and Claims App.
Appellants assert that “[t]he two clip assemblies [122, 124] are pivotally
coupled to each other, and not to the housing assembly as asserted by the
Examiner.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants further explain that “the clip assembly
[122, 124] is only coupled to the axle member [26] when the clip is locked
in place by two opposing fasteners [126]” and that “[w]hen two arcuate
members [122, 124] are coupled by a single screw [126], the arcuate
members are coupled together, but are not coupled to the frame.” Id.
We agree with Appellants and find that the record does not support
the Examiner’s finding that arcuate portion 122 is “pivotally coupled” to the
hose reel assembly, as required by independent claims 1 and 11.
In particular, the portion of Cowley that the Examiner relies on
provides,
To keep the seal pipe 84 from slipping out of the end of the axle
member 26, retainer means in the form of a clip 120 (FIGS. 5
and 7) is locked into diametrically opposite slots formed in the
end of axle member 26. Retainer clip 120 consists of an annular
member formed of two similar arcuate portions 122 and 124
each having a tooth 123 projecting from the center of their inner
surfaces. These teeth fit through slots 125 formed in the end of
axle member 26 and extend into a groove 127 formed in the
outer surface of the end 88 of swivel member 82. The two
portions 122 and 124 of clip 120 are connected together by two
sheet metal screws 126 screwed through aligned apertures at
the ends of the two portions. The clip 120 can be preassembled
by one screw which serves as a hinged connection, thereby
making it simple to apply to the shaft 26.
Cowley, col. 3, ll. 49–63 (emphasis omitted) (italicized emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891

7
As emphasized through italics, above, and as Appellants correctly
argue, “[n]othing in this description states that one clip member [122 or 124]
is coupled to the shaft [26] while the other clip member [124 or 122] is
pivotally coupled thereto.” Reply Br. 3 (referring to Cowley, col. 3,
ll. 58–63). We further agree with Appellants’ interpretation of the cited
passage, in that “the clip assembly is only ‘coupled’ to the shaft when the
second screw is attached[, at which time,] the members [122, 124] are in a
fixed configuration, not a pivotal configuration.” Id.
Because the record does not support a finding that Cowley discloses a
“clip assembly body pivotally coupled to [a] hose reel assembly frame
assembly,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20 as
being anticipated by Cowley.
Rejections (ii) and (iii) - Claims 6–9 and 16–19 as Unpatentable
Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Treverton or Rosenberg
for disclosing a “clip assembly body pivotally coupled to [a] hose reel
assembly frame assembly” and instead relies on Cowley for teaching this
limitation, as discussed above in connection with Rejection (i). See Ans.
9–12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 6–9 and 16–19 as being unpatentable over Cowley in
view of Treverton and, alternatively, claims 6–9 and 16–19 as being
unpatentable over Cowley in view of Rosenberg.

Appeal 2012-010941
Application 12/270,891

8
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cowley is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–9 and 16–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowley and Treverton is also
reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–9 and 16–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowley and Rosenberg is also
reversed.
REVERSED

pgc