Ex Parte Kohlrusch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2017

13256474 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2017)

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.
13/256,474 09/14/2011 Frank Kohlrusch PTB-6032-97 2102
23117 7590 10/11/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, BAO D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK KOHLRUSCH and GUNTER STEFFENS
Appeal 2016-002744
Application 13/256,474
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Kohlrasch and Gunter Steffens (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 16-41. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a rinse container, device for rinsing a
component of a laundry drying machine, and laundry drying machine. Spec.
Appeal 2016-002744
Application 13/256,474
11. Claims 16, 22, and 32 are independent. Claim 16, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A rinse container for a laundry drying machine, the rinse
container structured to store a rinsing fluid, said rinse container
comprising:
an outlet opening configured to release the rinsing fluid
from the rinse container;
a sealing part configured to selectively open and close the
outlet opening, said sealing part having a sealing head positioned
above the outlet opening to seal the outlet opening; and
a spring element connecting the sealing head to the rinse
container and being structured to urge the sealing head against
the outlet opening.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Trouilhet US 3,910,499
Goldberg US 2005/0066538 A1
Bari EP 1936022 A1
Brunswick WO 2008/067352 A3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 16—23, 25, 27—31, and 41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Trouilhet.
II. Claims 22, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Brunswick.
III. Claims 32—34, 36, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bari and Trouilhet.
IV. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bari, Trouilhet, and Goldberg.
Oct. 7, 1975
Mar. 31,2005
June 25, 2008
June 5, 2008
2
Appeal 2016-002744
Application 13/256,474
V. Claims 32, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bari and Brunswick.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Trouilhet discloses each and every limitation
of claim 16. See Final Act. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Trouilhet discloses “a spring element connecting the sealing head to the
rinse container and being structured to urge the sealing head against the
outlet opening.” Id. at 3 (citations and emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend that “the small rod 115 and the spring 122 do not
appear to be a ‘spring element’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 7. Noting that “the
rejection cites to two distinct components, one of which is not even a spring
at all, for the claimed ‘spring element,’” {id.) Appellants argue that “there is
no justification provided by the Examiner for interpreting this claim term so
broadly that it can read on two physically distinct components of the cited
reference.” Reply Br. 2. Thus, the issue before us is one of claim
construction, and we must first construe the claim term “spring element”
before determining if the features identified by the Examiner as
corresponding to the claimed “spring element” can reasonably read on this
term.
As an initial matter, we note that Trouilhet discloses a spring 122, and
that Appellants acknowledge this fact. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly,
we must determine what difference, if any, there is between a spring and a
“spring element” as claimed. The term “spring element” appears throughout
the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. 1 8 (“the spring element may be a leaf
3
Appeal 2016-002744
Application 13/256,474
spring, as said leaf spring permits a particularly planar design and is able to
be attached easily.”). However, the Specification does not define this claim
term. See, generally, id. When the Specification is unavailing, dictionaries
may clarify the meaning of claim terms during prosecution. See In re Trans
Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An ordinary
and customary meaning of the claim term “element” is “a component or
constituent of a whole or one of the parts into which a whole may be
resolved by analysis.” Dictionary.com,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/element?s=t (last visited October 3,
2017).
The Examiner construes the claim term “spring element” to be
inclusive of more than just the parts of spring. See Final Act. 3. However,
given the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “element,” it appears
that the Examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad. In accordance with
the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “element,” a “spring
element” is a component of a spring. Thus, the Examiner’s determination
that Trouilhet’s rod 115 and spring 122 correspond to the claimed “spring
element” is in error. Further, we note that Trouilhet’s spring 122, which
could reasonably be read on the claimed spring element, does not connect
the sealing head to the rinse container in the manner specified by claim 16.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 16, and claims 17—21 which depend therefrom as anticipated by
Trouilhet. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 suffers from the same
deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claim 22, and claims 23, 25, 27—31, and 41 which depend
therefrom, as anticipated by Trouilhet for the same reason.
4
Appeal 2016-002744
Application 13/256,474
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that Brunswick discloses each and every
limitation of claim 22. See Final Act. 5—6. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Brunswick discloses a spring element (identifying Brunswick’s lever
arm 88, chamber 103, and spring element 105 as corresponding to the
claimed spring element). Id. As in the previous rejection, the Examiner
again identifies multiple items in Brunswick as corresponding to the “spring
element.” Accordingly, the Examiner has once more construed this claim
language in an unreasonably broad manner. Furthermore, we note that
Brunswick’s spring element 105, like Trouilhet’s spring 112, also is not
connected to the container and sealing head in the manner required by claim
22.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 22, and claims 24 and 26 which depend therefrom, as anticipated by
Brunswick.
Rejections III V
Rejections III—V rely upon the Examiner’s unreasonable claim
construction in finding that either Trouilhet or Brunswick meets the claim
limitations requiring a “spring element” for the reasons discussed supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims
32—34, 36, 39, and 40 as unpatentable over Bari and Trouilhet, claim 38 as
unpatentable over Bari, Trouilhet, and Goldberg, and claims 32, 35, and 37
as unpatentable over Bari and Brunswick.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 16-41 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5