Ex Parte Hansen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2010

09589973 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC J. HANSEN and JESSE J. WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: June 17, 2010
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a method for cleaning upholstery or carpet in which
fluid cleaning solution is dispensed onto the upholstery or carpet surface and
Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973

2
then recovered from the surface with suction comprising the step of
admixing an oxidizing agent with the cleaning solution prior to the step of
dispensing the cleaning solution onto the upholstery or carpet (claims 18,
21). In one embodiment, the method further comprises mixing the
admixture of oxidizing agent and cleaning solution with heated air “to heat
the admixture” and heating the air before the step of mixing the admixture
with heated air (claim 18). In another embodiment, the method further
comprises “heating the cleaning solution before the admixing step to heat the
admixture” (claim 21).
Representative claims 18 and 21, the sole independent claims on
appeal, read as follows:
18. A method for cleaning an upholstery or carpet surface in which
a fluid carpet or upholstery cleaning solution is dispensed onto the
upholstery or carpet surface to be cleaned and the cleaning solution is
recovered from the surface with suction, comprising the steps of:

admixing an oxidizing agent with the cleaning solution prior to the
step of dispensing the cleaning solution onto the upholstery or carpet
surface;

mixing the admixture with heated air to heat the admixture; and

heating the air before the step of mixing with1 admixture with heated
air.

21. A method for cleaning an upholstery or carpet surface in which
a fluid carpet or upholstery cleaning solution is dispensed onto the
upholstery or carpet surface to be cleaned and the cleaning solution is
recovered from the surface with suction, comprising the steps of:

1 Claim 18 contains a minor informality which is deserving of correction. In
the last step of this claim, the phrase “mixing with admixture with heated
air” should read – mixing the admixture with heated air --.
Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973

3

admixing an oxidizing agent with the cleaning solution prior to the
step of dispensing the cleaning solution onto the upholstery or carpet
surface; and

heating the cleaning solution before the admixing step to heat the
admixture.

The references set forth below are listed in the Answer (Ans. 2-3) as
the evidence relied upon in the prior art rejections before us:
McAllise 5,500,977 Mar. 26, 1996
Miracle 5,576,282 Nov. 19, 1996
Wang 5,987,696 Nov. 23, 1999
We will address each of the rejections on appeal in the sections below.
The § 103 Rejection of claim 18 over McAllise in view of Miracle
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McAllise in view of Miracle (Ans. 3).
The Examiner finds that McAllise discloses all aspects of the claim 18
method except for the use of an oxidizing agent but concludes that it would
have been obvious to admix an oxidizing agent with the cleaning solution of
McAllise in view of Miracle (id. at 3-4). With regard to the specific claim
18 step of “mixing the admixture with heated air to heat the admixture”, the
Examiner makes the finding set forth below:
Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973

4
McAllise et al teach that it is well known that when an
extracting cleansing device (10) is operating in cleansing
mode, warm moist exhaust air (610) is discharged through
the discharge nozzle (644) whereby the cleaning fluid is
atomizingly distributed throughout the discharged air and
conveyed thereby to the surface being cleaned and cleaning
solution is recovered from the surface with the suction (70)
and placed in a recovery tank (50). Please refer to figure 8B
and col. 12, lines 11-26.

(id. at 3). Further regarding this claim limitation, the Examiner also finds
that “McAllise et al teach that the motor 610 generates the warm air wherein
said warm air and the cleaning solution is [sic, are] discharged through the
nozzle 65 and conveyed on the surface to be cleaned” (id. at 9).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the above-quoted
claim limitation is satisfied by McAllise’s column 12 disclosure of mixing
warm moist exhaust air with cleaning solution. In a detailed analysis of the
reference disclosure, Appellants have shown the Examiner’s above findings
to be erroneous. Appellants correctly explain that cooling air is passed over
McAllise’s fan motor and discharged through outlet conduits 636L and
636R (col. 3, ll. 33-39; Fig. 6) rather than mixed with cleaning solution in
discharge nozzle 65 as the Examiner improperly found (App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. C). Moreover, Appellants are correct in explaining that the warm moist
exhaust air referred to in column 12 of McAllise is obtained from the
air/water separator and recovery tank 50 wherein warmth and heat are added
to the air via the hot cleaning solution initially provided to McAllise’s hot
water carpet cleaning extractor (id.). Under these circumstances, we agree
with Appellants’ argument (id.) that this warm moist exhaust air cannot be
hotter than the initially-provided hot cleaning solution and accordingly
Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973

5
cannot perform the claim 18 step “mixing the admixture [i.e., oxidizing
agent and cleaning solution] with heated air to heat the admixture”
(emphasis added).
For the above-stated reasons, Appellants have revealed error in the
Examiner’s finding that McAllise’s warm exhaust air would perform the
claim 18 function “to heat the admixture” of McAllise’s cleaning solution
and Miracle’s oxidizing agent. We cannot sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 18 over McAllise and Miracle.
The § 103 rejection of all appealed claims over Wang and Miracle
As an initial matter, we summarily reverse this rejection as applied
against claim 18 and the claims which depend therefrom. As correctly
argued by Appellants, “[t]he Examiner has not articulated any reasons as to
why claim 18 is met by Wang and Miracle” (App. Br. 9), and “the
combination of Wang and Miracle does not disclose the steps of mixing an
admixture (of oxidizing agent and cleaning [solution]) with heated air to heat
the admixture and heating the air before the step of mixing the admixture
with heated air as set forth in claim 18” (id.). This argument is convincing
and supported by the fact that the Examiner’s statement of rejection does not
address claim 18 (Ans. 4-6) and the fact that the Examiner does not respond
to Appellants’ argument (id. at 8-11).
Regarding claim 21, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses a carpet
cleaning machine comprising a cleaning fluid reservoir and a heater for
heating the cleaning fluid (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner acknowledges that
Wang does not disclose the oxidizing agent required by claim 21 or the
claim 21 step of heating the cleaning solution prior to admixing with the
oxidizing agent (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973

6
obvious to provide the cleaning solution of Wang with the oxidizing agent of
Miracle and “to add the oxidizing agent after the heating of the cleaning
solution because the skilled artisan would have wanted the machine[’]s
cleaning solution to become heated to a desirable temperature before adding
the oxidizing agent so that the effectiveness of the oxidizing agent would not
be limited” (id. at para. bridging 5-6).
Appellants argue that Wang and Miracle contain no teaching or
suggestion of the claim 21 step “heating the cleaning solution before the
admixing step to heat the admixture” (App. Br. para. bridging 10-11). We
agree.
The Examiner’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness is not supported
by the record even assuming that Wang and Miracle would have suggested
using a heated admixture of oxidizing agent and cleaning solution “so that
the effectiveness of the oxidizing agent would not be limited” as urged by
the Examiner (Ans. para. bridging 5-6, last sentence). There are ways of
achieving such a heated admixture other than the claim 21 step of “heating
the cleaning solution before the admixing step to heat the admixture”. For
example, the oxidizing agent and cleaning solution could first be admixed
and then heated in order to obtain the heated admixture and concomitantly
oxidizing agent effectiveness. As another example, the oxidizing agent
rather than the cleaning solution could be heated before the admixing step in
order to obtain the heated admixture and concomitantly oxidizing agent
effectiveness.
Neither Wang nor Miracle contains any teaching or suggestion of the
specific sequence required by claim 21 wherein the cleaning solution is
heated before the admixing step in order to heat the admixture. In the record
Appeal 2009-014509
Application 09/589,973

7
before us, only Appellants disclose this sequence (Spec. 4, ll. 10-18) and a
reason (i.e., the limited life span of oxidizing agent and activator) for such a
sequence (id. at 38, l. 13-39, l. 12). These circumstances lead us to conclude
that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is the result of an unwitting
application of hindsight derived from Appellants’ own disclosure.
Accordingly, we also cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claim 21 and of the claims which depend therefrom.
The § 103 rejection of all appealed claims over “McAllise et al (5,987,696)
in view of Miracle (5,576,282)” (Ans. 6)
In stating this rejection, the Examiner clearly has misidentified the
primary reference since the name “McAllise et al” does not correspond to
the number “5,987,696” which is the patent number for the above-discussed
Wang reference. Therefore, because the primary reference “McAllise et al
(5,987,696)” applied by the Examiner in this rejection does not exist in the
record of this appeal, we summarily reverse the rejection.
Conclusion
We have reversed each of the rejections advanced by the Examiner in
this appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

ssl

MCGARRY BAIR PC
32 Market Ave. SW
SUITE 500
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503