Ex Parte Gonzalo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2014

12421483 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
12/421,483 04/09/2009 Almada Gonzalo 1128.003 4586
36790 7590 10/31/2014
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2014 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 ALMADA GONZALO
____________

Appeal 2012-011056
Application 12/421,4831
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the last decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 13–32. Notice of Appeal (“Applicant hereby
appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences from the last
decision of the examiner” (emphasis omitted)); see Final Act. 2–4. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to the Appellant, “[t]he real party in interest is INSPIRATION
TREND, LLC of Palmetto Bay, Florida.” Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-011056
Application 12/421,483

2

Non-Argued Rejections
The Appellant does not present an argument against the following
rejections: claims 22–25 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement; claims 15–22 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; claims 13–19, 21,
26, 27, and 29–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as clearly anticipated by
Wagner (US 5,406,996, iss. Apr. 18, 1995); and, claims 13–31 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as clearly anticipated by Burgers (US 5,288,200, iss. Feb.
22, 1994). See Final Act. 2–3, Ans. 4–5.
Thus, the foregoing rejections are summarily sustained.

Argued Rejections
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the enablement requirement. Ans. 4; see Br. 6, 10–11.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as clearly anticipated
by Burgers. Ans. 5; see Br. 6–10.

Claimed Subject Matter
32. A method for positioning a water bottle for use in a
dispensing apparatus, the method comprising:
(a) engaging a portion of a water bottle with a securing
mechanism when the water bottle is in an upright
orientation;
(b) in response to initiation of a lifting sequence via a control
mechanism, automatically lifting the water bottle engaged
by the securing mechanism via a lifting mechanism; and
(c) rotating the water bottle engaged by the securing device
about a pivot axis of a rotational mechanism by which the
securing mechanism is coupled to the lifting mechanism,
Appeal 2012-011056
Application 12/421,483

3

said rotating including turning the water bottle upside-
down for inducing gravitational flow of water from the
water bottle into a dispenser mechanism of the dispensing
apparatus.

ANALYSIS
Enablement
The Examiner rejects claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
because “[i]t is unclear how the control mechanism is constructed for
automatic control and for using a switch or button or processor or for
varying force exerted by the lift mechanism.” Ans. 4.
The test for compliance with the enablement requirement is “whether
one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the
disclosures in the patent [application] coupled with information known in
the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics. Inc.,
857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Determining whether any necessary
experimentation is undue involves considering relevant factors including,
but not limited to: (1) the breadth of the claims; (2) the nature of the
invention; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the level of one of ordinary skill;
(5) the level of predictability in the art; (6) the amount of direction provided
by the inventor; (7) the existence of working examples; and (8) the quantity
of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content
of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We do not sustain this rejection because the Examiner does not
establish or even allege that the invention of claim 32 cannot be made
without undue experimentation. Br. 10–11.

Appeal 2012-011056
Application 12/421,483

4

Anticipation
The Appellant contends that the rotation of a water bottle in an arc as
disclosed in Burgers is in clear contrast with “rotating the water bottle
engaged by the securing device about a pivot axis of a rotational mechanism
by which the securing mechanism is coupled to the lifting mechanism,” as
recited in claim 32. Br. 9–10. The Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Burgers discloses a water bottle installer 11 for installing a water
bottle 13. Col. 3, ll. 61–62. Water bottle installer 11 includes a carriage 19
mounted to supporting structure 17 for movement along a path between a
loading position (Fig. 1a) and unloading position (Fig. 1c). Col. 3, ll. 62–67.
During movement along the path, carriage 19 and water bottle 13 travel
through an inverting region (Fig. 1b) where the carriage and the water bottle
invert. Col. 4, ll. 4–6; see also Br. 8–9. Although the entire path, which
starts at the loading position (Fig. 1a) and ends at the unloading position
(Fig. 1c), is similar to arc, the portion of the arc represented by the inverting
region (Fig. 1b) provides evidence of “rotating the water bottle engaged by
the securing device about a pivot axis of a rotational mechanism by which
the securing mechanism is coupled to the lifting mechanism,” as recited in
claim 32. See Ans. 4, 6. More specifically, Burgers’s disclosure includes: a
water bottle 13; a securing device, e.g., “belt 51 extending through the
peripheral wall 47 and having a buckle 53” (col. 4, ll. 52–63); a pivot axis,
e.g., the axis by which axle 57 rotates (col. 4, l. 64–col. 5, l. 14); a rotational
mechanism, including upper sprockets 55, axle 57, chains 61, mounting
member 63 coupled to a chain drive and carriage 19 (id.); and a lifting
mechanism, i.e., motors 73 (col. 6, ll. 36–51, col. 7, ll. 36–51), which moves
carriage 19 though the inverting region (Fig. 1b) path. See Ans. 4, 6.
Appeal 2012-011056
Application 12/421,483

5

Accordingly, Burgers discloses rotating water bottle 13 engaged by a
securing device 51, 53 about the pivot axis of a rotational mechanism 55, 57,
61, 63, 19 by which a securing mechanism 51, 53 is coupled to a lifting
device 73. See id.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 as clearly anticipated by
Burgers is sustained.

DECISION
We summarily AFFIRM the rejections of: claims 22–25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement
requirement; claims 15–22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite; claims 13–19, 21, 26, 27, and 29–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as clearly anticipated by Wagner; and claims 13–31 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as clearly anticipated by Burgers.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
clearly anticipated by Burgers.

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh