Ex Parte Gompper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2018

14550495 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2018)

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.
139650.208 9094
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/550,495 11/21/2014 Brion Gompper
27162 7590 01/11/2018
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
5 BECKER FARM ROAD
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
01/11/2018 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 BRION GOMPPER and
VARANJITSINH CHUDASAMA
Appeal 2016-007426
Application 14/550,495
Technology Center 3700
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, 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 final rejection of
claims 1,3,5, 6, 9-17, and 20—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-007426
Application 14/550,495
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a spray head for a pre-rinse assembly.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A spray head for a pre-rinse assembly comprising
a discharge cover having a plurality of circumferentially
disposed ports for discharging water therethrough;
an impeller rotatably mounted within said cover, said
impeller having a plurality of circumferentially disposed fins
thereon and a plurality of tabs disposed circumferentially thereof
and transverse to said fins, said tabs being disposed relative to
said ports whereby a respective tab momentarily covers a
respective port to prevent passage of water therethrough and
from said discharge cover during rotation of said impeller while
the other of said tabs are spaced from the other of said ports to
allow passage of water therethrough and from said discharge
cover; and
means within said cover for directing at least one jet of
water onto said fins of said impeller to effect rotation of said
impeller within said cover and for subsequent passage out of said
ports as jets of water, said means including a cup-shaped diffuser
secured to and concentrically within said discharge cover, said
diffuser having a base spaced from said discharge cover and a
circumferential wall extending from said base and abutting said
discharge cover, said wall having at least one slot extending
angularly therethrough for directing a jet of water therethrough
into said diffuser.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shames
Marsh
US 5,356,077 Oct. 18, 1994
US 6,533,194 B2 Mar. 18, 2003
2
Appeal 2016-007426
Application 14/550,495
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3,5, 6, 9, 10, 12—17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shames.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shames and Marsh.
OPINION
Claims 1,12, and 15 are independent. The Examiner finds that the
spray head of Shames anticipates each of the independent claims. Final Act.
2—3. In the Final Action concerning claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14—17, and 20, the
Examiner finds as follows:
Shames et al. disclose a spray head comprising:
a discharge cover 20 having a plurality of
circumferentially disposed ports 86;
an impeller 24 having a plurality of circumferentially
disposed fins 100 and
a plurality of tabs 104;
a means 16, 22, 95;
said means is a cup-shaped diffuser having a base 62 and
a circumferential wall 22;
said wall 22 having at least one slot 96.
Id. The Examiner reiterates these findings in the response to arguments
portion of the Final Action and in a subsequent Advisory Action. Final Act.
5 (119, 10); Advisory Act. 2-3.
Appellants argue that “Shames does not disclose a cup-shaped
diffuser with a circumferential wall having an angularly extending slot” as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further
explain: “Shames discloses the nozzle plate 22 to have tangentially directed
flow channels 96 which direct jets of water into a rotor chamber 58. (col. 5,
3
Appeal 2016-007426
Application 14/550,495
In. 9—11). These flow channels 96 are not in a circumferential wall of the
nozzle plate 22.” Id.
As can be seen above, the Final Action and Advisory Action do not
fully address this limitation of the claim. A detailed explanation of this part
of the Examiner’s rejection is provided for the first time in the Answer. See
Ans. 5—7. The Examiner finds that the nozzle plate 22 together with the
“transverse wall 62” forms the bottom of the cup-shaped diffuser and that
“cylindrical wall 63” is the sidewall of the cup-shaped diffuser. Id. at 6.
The Examiner also finds that the nozzle plate 22 is a circumferential wall,
because “nozzle plate 22 has a wall and a circumference” and it “extends
around the circumference of inner wall 98.” Id. The Examiner also finds
that “circumferential wall 22 . . . [has] an angularly extending slot 96.” Id.
at 7.
The Examiner does not specify whether the “circumferential wall” is
being interpreted as essentially all of the nozzle plate that “extends around
the circumference of inner wall 98” or whether it is limited to the wall
located at and around the circumference of the nozzle plate. However, we
understand it to be the former as the disclosure of Shames teaches the
downward-extending flow channels 96 extend through the transverse wall of
nozzle plate 22, but not through the cylindrical sidewall of nozzle plate 22.
Shames, col. 5:9—12, Fig. 3.
We are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would understand
“circumferential wall” to read on all of the nozzle plate that “extends around
the circumference of inner wall 98,” but rather would understand it to be
limited to the wall located at and around the circumference of the nozzle
plate. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
4
Appeal 2016-007426
Application 14/550,495
2004) (explaining that we give claims “their broadest reasonable
[construction] in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art.”).
As the circumferential wall around nozzle plate 22 does not include
flow channels 96 extending therethrough, the Examiner’s rejection does not
show that the prior art teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. For this
reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated.
Similar to claim 1, independent claims 12 and 15 both also claim “a
circumferential wall” where “said wall having a [at least one] slot extending
angularly therethrough.” We likewise do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of those claims for reasons similar to claim 1. As the rejections of
the dependent claims all depend on the Examiner’s unreasonably broad
claim construction, we likewise do not sustain the remaining rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-17, and 20-22 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5