Ex Parte Duineveld

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12158280 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/158,280 09/10/2008 Paul Duineveld
24737 7590 05/27/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2005P02884WOUS 7727
EXAMINER
SAUNDERS, MATTHEW P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL DUINEVELD
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul Duineveld ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-12, which are
all the pending claims. See Br. 4, 7. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N. V. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates generally to high-speed
droplet systems for oral cleaning applications." Spec., p. 1, 11. 4--5. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for oral cleaning of teeth, comprising:
a system for producing an uninterrupted stream of
individual fluid droplets (12) which impact and clean the teeth,
but leave a liquid film (19) residue thereon;
a source of gas flow (10) separate from and not a part of
the system for producing the stream of individual fluid droplets;
and
a gas flow directing member (15) for directing the gas
flow from the source thereof (10), bypassing the system for
producing the stream of individual fluid droplets, to an area on
the teeth which has thereon the liquid film (19) accumulated
from the residue of previous fluid droplets produced by the
producing system, wherein the gas flow has a velocity in the
range of 12 mis to 30 mis which is sufficient to reduce the
thickness of the liquid film and wherein the gas flow is directed
toward the liquid film on the teeth at an angle of at least 60°
relative to the surface of the teeth, so as to increase the
efficiency of subsequent fluid droplets directed to the teeth for
cleaning action.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kanno us 5,873,380 Feb.23, 1999
2
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8,
and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kanno.
ANALYSIS
Appellant presents arguments against the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4,
6-8, and 10-12 as a group. See Br. 8-10. We select claim 1 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-12 standing or falling therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that Kanno discloses a system for cleaning teeth,
substantially a claimed, "but fails to explicitly disclose [that] the velocity is
between 12[]m/s to 30[]m/s." Final Act. 2-3. However, the Examiner
determined that "it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention ... to make the velocity be between
12[]m/s and 30[]m/s, since it has been held that discovering an optimum
value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art." Id.
at 3 (citing In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272 (CCPA 1980)). The Examiner
acknowledged that Kanno "fails to explicitly disclose the angle of the
diagonal direction of the gas flow being at least 60 degrees or substantially
perpendicular," but determined that "these parameters are deemed matters of
design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through
routine experimentation in determining optimum results." Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is in error because
Kanno is non-analogous art. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellant asserts that
3
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
Kanno is not reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellant because,
in Kanno, "the problem deals with removal of contaminants on a wafer by
use of high-speed, high-pressure liquid droplets" and using gas to remove
water accumulated on the wafer, whereas the claimed invention "is
concerned with removing biofilm from teeth without harming the teeth or
the surrounding tissues." Id. According to Appellant, "us[ing] the system of
Kanno in an oral environment would be clearly quite harmful" because
removing wafer contaminants "requires a much higher force and
substantially higher gas speed than can be safely used in removing biofilms
from human teeth in the mouth." Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The proper two-
prong test to define the scope of analogous prior art is (1) "whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed," and
(2) even "if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved." In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). Here, regardless of whether
Kanno is from the same field of endeavor as Appellant's claimed oral
cleaning device, we agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Kanno
relied on in the rejection are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which Appellant was concerned. See Ans. 2.
Appellant's Specification describes a particular problem to be solved,
namely "to overcome the disadvantage of the presence of a liquid film on [a]
target in order to ensure effective cleaning by a fluid droplet system." Spec.,
p. 1, 11. 23-24; see also id. at 11. 14--22. With regard to this identified
problem, we agree with the Examiner that Kanno' s teachings are reasonably
4
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
pertinent. See Ans. 2. In particular, Kanno relates to a similar problem and
presents a similar solution, describing a fluid droplet cleaning system that
sprays a gas diagonally toward a surface to remove a film of fluid formed on
the surface so that the cleaning effect is not reduced. Kanno, col. 7,
11. 31-39. Although Kanno's surface cleaning system is described in the
context of wafer manufacturing rather than oral care, we agree with
Examiner that "the purpose[] of both the invention and the prior art ... is to
remove a liquid film from a surface that is being cleaned, so that the liquid
film does not retard the cleaning action of fluid droplets that are being
applied to the surface." Ans. 2. Moreover, Appellant's assertion that
Kanno' s system uses a much higher force and gas speed is not persuasive of
error because it amounts to mere attorney argument unsupported by
objective evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Appellant offers no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support
the assertion that using Kanno' s system in an oral environment would be
harmful. See Br. 9.
Appellant argues that Kanno does not teach that "the gas flow has a
velocity in the range of 12 mis to 30 mis" as claimed. Br. 9. In particular,
Appellant asserts that "[t]he low gas velocity set forth in claim 1 goes
against the thrust of the teaching of Kanno and there is no suggestion in
Kanno or any other teaching of significantly lowering the gas pressure in
order to provide a safe, effective removal of fluid droplets for oral cleaning
in the teeth." Id. This argument is not persuasive of error because it is not
responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner
acknowledged that Kanno does not disclose the claimed gas velocity range,
but determined that such a range would have been obvious to a person
5
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
having ordinary skill in the art because "it has been held that discovering an
optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the
art." Final Act. 3. Appellant does not allege, nor do we discern, any error
with respect to the Examiner's determination that the gas speed is a result
effective variable capable of routine optimization by a skilled artisan.
Appellant also argues that Kanno does not disclose "an uninterrupted
flow of fluid droplets for the purpose of oral cleaning" as claimed because
the reference requires "an 'interrupter' structure which is positioned between
the source of fluid droplets and the surface of the wafer." Br. 9--10 (citing
Kanno, Fig. 13). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because, as
the Examiner correctly found, Kanno' s interrupter does not interrupt a flow
of droplets, but rather "acts to interrupt a constant stream of liquid which
then creates the droplets." Ans. 3. Specifically, Kanno discloses that a
"column of the liquid spurted from spray nozzle 4 is interrupted by
interrupting means 14 before attaining wafer 1, so as to form a droplet,
which collides against wafer 1." Kanno, col. 6, 11. 41--43 (boldface omitted).
Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings,
which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4,
6-8, and 10-12 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanno.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8,
and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanno.
6
Appeal2014-006466
Application 12/158,280
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7