Ex Parte Jung

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

12741869 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121741,869 05/07/2010
909 7590 02/26/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyung II Jung
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.
082382-0390890 1480
EXAMINER
COLLADO, CYNTHIA FRANCISCA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
heather.marthers@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYUNG IL JUNG
Appeal2014-002141
Application 12/741,869 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kyung Il Jung (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) claims 1and5 as
anticipated by Parker (US 3,946,903, iss. Mar. 30, 1976).2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is IP Development
Limited. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Feb. 17, 2012).
2 Claims 2--4 and 6-12 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002141
Application 12/741,869
INVENTION
Appellant's invention "relates to a bottle for containing liquid
contents therein." Spec 1.3
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A bottle for containing liquid contents, comprising:
a body, at least part of an upper portion of which is
provided with a plurality of guides each of which protrudes
inwardly from an inside surface of the body and extends
continuously between a lower end and an upper end of the
upper portion in a spiral pattern; and
a neck having an opening therein,
wherein a cross-section of each of the plurality of guides
has a curvature in the general shape of a letter "C" or a reversed
letter "C" when each of the plurality of guides is cut by a plane
through a central axis of the spiral pattern, and wherein each of
the curvatures changes in a manner such that, in a liquid flow
direction from the body directly towards the opening, a leading
portion of the cur1ature is relatively tight and a trailing portion
of the curvature is relatively loose.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Parker teaches a container including a
plurality of guides that extend continuously in a spiral pattern between lower
and upper ends of an upper portion of the container. Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Parker, Fig. 1 and annotating Parker, Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds
that the curvature of a cross-section of each guide changes "in a manner such
that ... in a liquid flow direction from the body directly towards the
3 We refer to the Substitute Specification filed Jan. 3, 2011.
2
Appeal2014-002141
Application 12/741,869
opening, a curvature of a leading portion of the curvature is relatively tight
and [a] trailing portion of the curvature is relatively loose." Id.
Appellant argues that because walls 14, 15 of Parker are straight and
apicies 12, 13 are discontinuities therebetween, Parker fails to teach "a
change in curvature in a liquid flow direction from relatively tight to
relatively loose, as recited by the features of claim 1." Appeal Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner points to Figure 3 of Parker and takes the
position that "fig 3 clearly shows walls 12, 14 and 15 not having the same
curvature ... where a change in curvature in a liquid flow direction from
relatively tight to relatively loose." Ans. 6. According to the Examiner,
"element[ s] 14, 15 (trailing) is clearly loose and element 12 (leading) is
clearly tight." Id.
The Examiner's annotated Figure 3 of Parker (Final Act. 3) is
reproduced below:
3
. .· .. -~. ~".,);~~~\
~$ffl~~~~~~
Appeal2014-002141
Application 12/741,869
The Examiner's annotated Figure 3 of Parker depicts the Examiner's
interpretation of a change in curvature between a tight curvature and a loose
curvature. Ans. 4.
At the outset, we note that Parker's element 12 is not a wall, but rather
an outer apex formed by sloping walls 14, 15 that form an internal flute. See
Parker, col. 1, 1. 68---col. 2, 1. 6; see also Reply Br. 5. Although we
appreciate the Examiner's position that a drawing teaches all that it
reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art, 4
nonetheless when viewing Parker's Figure 3, we agree with Appellant that
"each wall 14 and 15 of Parker is simply a sloping wall, without curvature."
Reply Br. 5. As such, because walls 14, 15 of Parker do not have a
curvature, Parker fails to teach a change in curvature, as called for by claim
1. Even assuming arguendo that walls 14, 15 have a curvature, Appellant is
nonetheless correct in that "Parker - at best - shows walls 14 and 15 of same
curvature." Id. at 6.
Furthermore, to the extent that the Examiner considers the change in
Parker's spiral flutes from convex to concave and vice versa between apicies
12, 13 to be the claimed curvature change, we do not agree that such a
change in curvature amounts to changing the curvature from "relatively
tight" at a leading portion to "relatively loose" at a trailing portion of the
curvature, as called for by claim 1. Claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case,
Appellant's Specification describes the curvature of guide 121 as having a
4 See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979).
4
Appeal2014-002141
Application 12/741,869
leading portion (b) that is tighter than a trailing portion (a) which means that
portion (a) has a gentle curve (large radius of curvature), whereas portion (b)
has a tight curve (short radius of curvature). See Spec. 14--15, Fig. 6.
Because walls 14, 15 of Parker are sloping walls that have no curvature or at
most have the same curvature, i.e., the same radius of curvature, Parker's
spiral guides do not have a curvature that changes in the manner called for
by claim 1.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1and5 as anticipated by Parker.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 5 is reversed.
REVERSED
5