Ex Parte Drozd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12613372 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/613,372 11105/2009 Mitchell M. Drozd
52145 7590 09/29/2016
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
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.
22424 6153
(GRAC:0043)SW A/MOSS
EXAMINER
CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 MITCHELL M. DROZD, PAUL R. MICHELI,
CHRISTINE S. LAUB, and NEKHEEL S. GAJJAR
Appeal2014-009260
Application 12/613,372
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1--4, 6-10, and 21-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-009260
Application 12/613,372
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a spray gun having protective liner and
light trigger pull. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A spray coating system, comprising:
a spray coating device, comprising:
a body comprising a liquid inlet coupled to a liquid
chamber;
a protective liner extending inside the liquid
chamber, wherein the protective liner is a one-piece
annular body fixedly coupled to the body without threads,
wherein the one-piece annular body has a first and second
couplings, the first coupling is disposed along an interior
of the protective liner and a second coupling is disposed
along an exterior of the protective liner;
a liquid nozzle extending inside the protective liner,
wherein the liquid nozzle comprises a first mating
coupling that couples with the first coupling of the
protective liner; and
a cap extending over the liquid nozzle, wherein the
cap comprises a second mating coupling that couples with
the second coupling of the protective liner.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Smith
Steinberg
Ced oz
Yie
Baltz
Hufgard
us 5,102,051
us 5,183,207
us 5,364,033
us 5, 794,854
US 2009/0224083 Al
US Re. 34,608
2
Apr. 7, 1992
Feb.2, 1993
Nov. 15, 1994
Aug. 18, 1998
Sep. 10,2009
May 17, 1994
Appeal2014-009260
Application 12/613,372
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Smith, Cedoz, and Steinberg.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Smith and Cedoz.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Smith and Baltz.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Smith and Hufgard.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Smith, Yie, and Steinberg.
OPINION
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, thus, all other claims depend
from claim 1.
Appellants argue that claim 1 is not anticipated by Smith because
Smith does not teach a "protective liner [that] is a one-piece annular body"
where a cap "couples with [a] second coupling of the protective liner" as
required by the claim. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner states that "elements 34 and 72 [of Smith] together
[are] the equivalent of the claimed protective liner" and that "these pieces
make up one whole piece with an annular body." Final Act. 8.
3
Appeal2014-009260
Application 12/613,372
The Examiner further explains: "elements 34 and 72 equate to the
claimed protective liner and when taken together as any assembly would
be[,] they form a one-piece body" and there is "no language precluding the
idea of an assembly equating to a one-piece body present in the claim
language." Answer 3.
The Examiner's assertion and interpretation is contrary to the
requirements of an anticipation rejection. "A claim is anticipated only if
each and every element as set forth in the claim is found either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Ind.
v. Union Oil Col. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Claim 1
requires the protective liner be "a one-piece annular body." The assembly
in Smith of elements 34 and 72 is not one-piece, but an assembly of two
pieces. The two-piece assembly (34/72) of Smith does not anticipate the
limitation of a protective liner [that] is a one-piece annular body that couples
with a cap as claimed.
For these reasons we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim
1. For these same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 6, 7,
9, 10, 21, 23, and 25, which depend from claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the Examiner relies on Smith as discussed supra in combination
with the additional teachings of Cedoz, Steinberg, Baltz, Hufgard, and Yie.
Final Act. 5-8. The Examiner does not indicate how it might be obvious to
form a one-piece annular body in view of the teachings of Smith, or
alternatively, how these additional references would render a one-piece
annular body obvious. For these reasons we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 22, and 24.
4
Appeal2014-009260
Application 12/613,372
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, and 6-10, and 21-25 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5