10411003 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2010)

Ex Parte Kohs et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 25, 2010

10411003 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte STEPHEN C. KOHS and DANIEL J. BRUGGEMAN ____________________ Appeal 2009-005330 Application 10/411,003 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Decided: March 25, 2010 ____________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, STEFAN STAICOVICI and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1 decision finally rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 2 unpatentable over Knobbe (US 5,395,046, issued Mar. 7, 1995) and Riley 3 (US 5,491,898, issued Feb. 20, 1996). The Examiner has allowed claims 22, 4 24 and 25. The Appellants have cancelled claims 1-21. We have5 Appeal 2009-005330 Application 10/411,003 2 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We REVERSE. 2 Claim 23 is illustrative of the claims on appeal: 3 23. A hand held paint spray gun comprising: 4 a. a body; 5 b. a molded handle grip, the handle grip 6 attached to the body, the handle grip further 7 comprising a front surface, side surfaces, a rear 8 surface and a recessed region disposed on the rear 9 surface; and 10 c. a non-conductive pad disposed within 11 the recessed region of the rear surface of the 12 handle grip wherein the pad is comprised of lesser 13 density material than the handle grip. 14 Knobbe discloses a hand-held powder spray gun including a wand-15 style handle 14 or a pistol-style handle 114. (Knobbe, col. 5, ll. 7-9; col. 8, 16 ll. 10-12; and col. 9, ll. 52-54). Each of the handles 14, 114 includes a 17 handle body 70, 170. (Knobbe, col. 8, ll. 12-15 and col. 9, ll. 55-61). Each 18 handle body 70, 170 mounts a grounding pad 81 which is in contact with the 19 operator’s hand when the operator grasps the handle. The grounding pad 81 20 is connected to a grounding wire 82 for grounding the operator so that the 21 operator may operate the spray gun safely. (Knobbe, col. 8, ll. 59-66; and 22 col. 10, ll. 13-17 and 21-24). 23 Riley discloses a spring-loaded center punch device 10. (Riley, col. 4, 24 ll. 9-11). The device includes a hollow tubular handle portion 24. A foam 25 padded handle 32 secured to an intermediate extent 30 of the handle portion 26 24 provides the user with a comfortable means of holding the device 10. 27 (Riley, col. 4, ll. 15-20). Figures 4 and 5 of Riley depict the foam padded 28 Appeal 2009-005330 Application 10/411,003 3 handle 32 entirely surrounding the intermediate extent 30 of the tubular 1 handle portion 24. 2 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious either to 3 form the grounding pad 81 of Knobbe from foam similar to the material of 4 the foam padded handle 32 of Riley or to add a foam pad to one of the 5 handles 14, 114 of Knobbe over the grounding pad 81. (Ans. 3 and 4). The 6 Examiner finds that adding a foam pad to the handle 14 or 114 of Knobbe 7 would have no effect on the “conductive function” of the grounding pad 81 8 and the grounding wire 82 of Knobbe because adding the foam pad atop the 9 gounding pad would have no effect on the electrical connection between the 10 grounding pad and wire. (Ans. 4). 11 The Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not 12 have had an apparent reason for modifying the handle 14 or 114 of Knobbe 13 in the manner proposed by the Examiner. The Appellant contends that one 14 of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from modifying 15 Knobbe in the manner proposed because the modification would defeat a 16 disclosed safety feature, namely, the grounding of the operator. (App. Br. 17 4). 18 The combined teachings of Knobbe and Riley would have 19 discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from modifying the handle 14 or 20 114 in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Claim 23 recites a “non-21 conductive pad disposed within the recessed region of the rear surface of the 22 handle grip.” (Emphasis added.) Substituting a non-conductive pad for the 23 grounding pad 81 disclosed by Knobbe or adding a non-conductive pad over 24 the grounding pad likely would electrically insulate the grounding pad and 25 the grounding wire from the operator’s hand. This electrical insulation 26 Appeal 2009-005330 Application 10/411,003 4 would defeat a disclosed safety feature, namely, grounding the operator’s 1 hand. Since the proposed modification would defeat the disclosed safety 2 feature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from 3 pursuing the modification. This would have been true even if the proposed 4 modification might have provided some additional comfort to the operator. 5 The Examiner articulates no persuasive reasoning to explain why one 6 of ordinary skill in the art might have had reason to modify Knobbe’s spray 7 gun in the fashion claimed in claim 23. We do not sustain the rejection of 8 claim 23 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knobbe and Riley. 9 10 DECISION 11 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 23. 12 13 REVERSED 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 mls 21 22 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. 23 2200 IDS CENTER 24 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET 25 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 26