Ex Parte Hagleitner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

13274668 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/274,668 10/17/2011
24131 7590 05/19/2016
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
PO BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HANS-GEORG HAGLEITNER
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.
WTH-70987 5383
EXAMINER
PANCHOLI, VISHAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-GEORG HAGLEITNER
Appeal2014-003511
Application 13/274,668
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and PAUL J.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant, Hans-Georg Hagleitner, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matthews '612 (US 2005/0139612 Al,
June 30, 2005), Matthews '599 1 (US 2005/0271599 Al, Dec. 8, 2005), and
Ophardt (US 2006/0011655 Al, Jan. 19, 2006). Claim 2 is cancelled. Final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant agrees the reference should be US 2005/0271599 (Appeal Br. 4),
not US 2005/0275199 as recited on page 2 in the Final Action.
Appeal2014-003511
Application 13/274,668
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a foaming soap dispenser. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is reproduced below:
A foaming soap dispenser, comprising:
a housing having an underside accommodating a
dispensing opening;
a receptacle disposed inside said housing;
a liquid soap reservoir exchangeably inserted into said
receptacle;
a soap container disposed underneath and m
communication with said reservoir;
a foaming device in vicinity of said dispensing opening;
a peristaltic metering pump connected between said soap
container and said foaming device for supplying a volume of
soap;
a diaphragm air pump connected to said foaming device
for supplying a volume of foaming air;
electric motors each being associated with a respective one
of said pumps and configured to be driven separately; and
a controller controlling a ratio of delivery of said volume
of soap and said volume of foaming air.
OPINION
The Examiner states that Matthews '612 discloses all of the
limitations of claim 1 except for a diaphragm air pump which is taught by
Matthews '599. Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner reasons that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the
peristaltic air pump of Matthews ('612) with a diaphragm air
pump of Matthews [' 599] since diaphragm air pumps are
common knowledge in the art and they produce the same
expected result.
Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2014-003511
Application 13/274,668
In response, Appellant argues that the Examiner is incorrect for two
primary reasons. First, Appellant correctly states that "Matthews '612
discloses the use of one (not two) electric motor for actuation of the
dispenser." Appeal Br. 7 (citing Matthews '612 i-f4). Appellant, however,
states that Ophardt discloses "two electrically operated pumps" and "to drive
two motors separately for clearing soap liquid from the foam generator." Id.
at 7-8. In reply, the Examiner agrees with Appellant, stating that "Ophardt
also teaches that motors can be used to operate and control[] pump[ s] that
transport the dispensing fluid." Ans. 7 (citing Ophardt i136). The Examiner
further explains that:
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use the
teachings of Matthews '[5]99 and Ophardt to combine with
Matthews '612 to manufacture dispenser wherein the individual
electric motors are used to control the pumps separately and
wherein one of the pumps is a liquid pump and the other pump is
an air pump. Furthermore, it is old and well-known in the art to
construct dispensers with pumps that are controlled and operated
by electric motors to satisfy various user prompted soap
mqmnes.
Ans. 7. Appellant does not address or contest the Examiner's reasoning for
combining the three prior art references and, thus, does not show how the
Examiner erred.
Second, Appellant also argues that the prior art does not disclose a
"soap container disposed underneath and in communication with said
reservoir," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9. Referring to Fig. 2 of
Matthews '612, the Examiner states that "the bottom part of the soap
reservoir 18 acts as a soap container prior to the soap entering the pump
chamber." Final Act. 2-5. According to the Examiner, Matthews '612
discloses "a dispenser with a soap reservoir 18 that houses a sufficient
3
Appeal2014-003511
Application 13/274,668
quantity of soap and [] the bottom portion of the soap reservoir 18 acts a
soap container which holds the soap temporarily prior to permitting the soap
to enter the soap pump chamber." Ans. 7. The Examiner also asserts that
"the drawings of the application do not clearly show the position of the soap
container in regards to the soap reservoir. The only clarification the
specification provides is that the soap container is disposed directly
underneath the soap reservoir." Ans. 7 (citing Spec. i-f 6). However,
referring to Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 22 of the Specification, for example, the
Specification discloses that working block 1 is disposed below reservoir 23,
and "working block 1 contains a soap container 2." Reservoir 23, working
block 1, and soap container 2 are separate physical elements, and soap
container 2 is part of working block 1, not reservoir 23. In light of the
Specification, we agree with Appellant that "a soap container that is part of
the reservoir cannot reasonably be considered as being disposed below the
reservoir." Appeal Br. 8-9. For this reason, the Examiner's claim
construction (see Ans. 7-8 (construing the claimed "soap container" as a
lower portion of the "liquid soap reservoir")) is in error because it is not
reasonable when read in light of the Specification. When read in light of the
Specification, Matthews '612 does not disclose a "soap container disposed
underneath and in communication with said reservoir," as recited in claim 1.
The other two references, Matthews '599 and Ophardt, do not remedy the
deficiencies of Matthews '612.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of Matthews '612, Matthews '599, and Ophardt.
4
Appeal2014-003511
Application 13/274,668
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-8.
REVERSED
5