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.
11/686,158 03/14/2007 Dan Fish 06-873 5877
20306 7590 09/25/2012
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BLOUNT, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAN FISH
____________
Appeal 2011-007450
Application 11/686,158
Technology Center 2600
____________
Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-18, and 21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Examiner noted claim 19 is objected to but would be allowable if
rewritten independent form to include all the limitations of the base claim
and any intervening claims (Ans. 10).
Appeal 2011-007450
Application 11/686,158
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for
indicating when a leak is present in a residential toilet waste line (Spec. 1:
4-5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A leak detection apparatus comprising:
an abode having a floor, the floor having a top and an underside
and a deadspace below the floor underside wherein the deadspace is
not a crawlspace;
an aqueous waste generating unit which is located on or above
the floor top;
a waste pipe having a first end associated with the aqueous
waste generating unit wherein at least a portion of the waste pipe is
located in the deadspace;
a container including an opening positioned below a portion of
the waste pipe located in the deadspace; and
a detector associated with the container, the detector capable of
detecting the presence of water.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Wendel (US Patent No. 5,655,561,
Aug. 12, 1997) in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 5,339,676, Aug. 23,
1994).
Appeal 2011-007450
Application 11/686,158
3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Wendel discloses all the features of Appellant’s
claimed invention except Wendel does not specifically disclose a container,
associated with a sensor, placed below a portion of pipes (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that Johnson discloses this feature and asserts that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to put the
container taught by Johnson’s water leak detection, collection, and support
system into Wendel’s wireless system for detecting leaks (Ans. 6).
Appellant contends Wendel discloses sensors placed at locations
where they are not easily serviced or there is no visual indication. Appellant
also contends Johnson’s device is intended to be installed directly below a
sink in an accessible area (App. Br.7). Thus, Appellant asserts neither
reference discloses a leak detection apparatus located in a dead space that is
not a crawl space (App. Br. 9). Further, Appellant argues the Examiner is
replacing Wendel’s sensors with the Johnson device in the crawl space
(App. Br. 9). We do not agree. Appellant is misreading the Examiner’s
assertions.
As the Examiner finds, Wendel discloses a leak detector used in
various locations including near or under an appliance, exterior wall, or any
location that is not easily accessed (Ans. 12-13; Wendel, col 1. ll. 42-67).
Additionally, as noted above, the Examiner is using the container taught by
Johnson in the invention of Wendel (Ans. 6, 11); not replacing Wendel’s
sensors as Appellant contends. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and the claims dependent therefrom as obvious over
Wendel and Johnson.
Appeal 2011-007450
Application 11/686,158
4
Claims 15 and 21 were separately argued. Appellant contends neither
Wendel nor Johnson disclose using a conduit for any purpose in conjunction
with a leak detection device.
The definition of conduit is “1: a natural or artificial channel through
which something (as a fluid) is conveyed; 2: archaic: FOUNTAIN; 3: a pipe,
tube, or tile for protecting electric wires or cables; 4: a means of transmitting
or distributing
.”2
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s assertion that Johnson discloses a
conduit (drain pipe) associated with a container for directing water from a
container to a detector (Ans. 9) and that Wendel allows flexibility of the
placement of the leak detection apparatus, as noted above with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, we conclude the Examiner did not err in finding
combining Wendel with Johnson would be an obvious design choice (Ans.
13).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-18, and 21 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).
AFFIRMED
pgc
2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduit, last accessed August
16, 2012.
