Ex Parte Kountotsis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

13524433 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

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.
13/524,433 06/15/2012 Theodosios Kountotsis TK2008-0002 CON 7288
100564 7590 05/27/2016
Theodosios Kountotsis
26 Frostfield Pl.
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
CASTILLO, KEVIN CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THEODOSIOS KOUNTOTSIS
____________

Appeal 2014-003598
Application 13/524,433
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Theodosios Kountotsis (Appellant) seeks review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to bottles, and more particularly,
but not exclusively, to a bottle having dual chambers for separately
dispensing liquids via an oblique surface.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 11 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
Appeal 2014-003598
Application 13/524,433

2
1. A bottle, comprising:
a body having a dividing wall therein;
a first chamber for holding a first liquid;
a second chamber for holding a second
liquid;
a removable cap secured in a fixed oblique
position in relation to an entire length of a base of
the bottle; and
a single slidable orifice configured to travel
on a non-linear track adapted and dimensioned to be
flush with a non-movable top surface of the
removable cap.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1–8 and 11–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bender (US 557,352, issued Mar. 31, 1896).
2. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bender and Eva (US 2003/0173364 A1, published
Sept. 18, 2003).

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 – The rejection of claims 1–8
and 11–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Independent claim 1 recites “a removable cap secured in a fixed
oblique position in relation to an entire length of a base of the bottle.”
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Independent claim 11 recites the step of
“forming a removable cap secured in a fixed oblique position in relation to
an entire length of a base of the bottle.” Id. at 13.
Appeal 2014-003598
Application 13/524,433

3
In rejecting claims 1 and 11, the Examiner stated “a removable cap
[B] secured in a fixed oblique position in relation to an entire length of a
base of the bottle [Fig A, denoted by L]” and also provided the annotated
version of a portion of Figure 1 of Bender (referred to by the Examiner as
“Figure A”) shown below:

Final Act. 2 (dated Jan. 2, 2013). Figure 1 of Bender depicts “a vertical
section taken through the center of the liquid-holder.” Bender 1, ll. 36–37.
The Examiner’s Figure A shows a portion of Figure 1 of Bender, with two
parallel lines identified with an “L” overlaid on certain structure on the left
side of the image.
Appellant argues that “portion ‘L’ . . . cannot be considered the base
of the bottle A, much less the entire length of the base of the bottle A.”
Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, portion L is “merely a small (i.e., not
entire base), slanted, and randomly selected region.” Id. Appellant states
that cap 210 in Figure 2 of the Specification “is obliquely positioned with
respect to the entire length of the base 18 of the bottle 40.” Id.
The Examiner responds that, in claims 1 and 11, Appellant “does not
define what the base of the bottle comprises, for example: a bottom wall, the
area that contacts the supporting surface when, etc.” Ans. 6. The Examiner
also states, “the base of the bottle is the base shown in Fig A, having an
Appeal 2014-003598
Application 13/524,433

4
entire length along the base L. This is due to the lack of definition or
structure to the claimed limitation ‘base.’” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the record here does not support the
Examiner’s finding that the angled portion of structure identified as “L” in
Figure A would be considered “an entire length of a base of the bottle”
shown in Figure 1 of Bender. Under the broadest reasonable construction,
the term “base of the bottle” recited in claims 1 and 11 would—as a first
example—read on the structure identified by the dashed box overlaid on a
version of Figure A below:

Appellant acknowledges that this is at least one structure in Bender that
could reasonably be identified as “a base of the bottle.” See Appeal Br. 6
(identifying Appellant’s “interpretation of the base of the bottle”). The
Examiner also seems to take the position that this structure could reasonably
be identified as “a base of the bottle.” See Ans. 6 (listing “a bottom wall” as
one possible example of what a “base of the bottle” could comprise). Under
this view of “base of the bottle,” however, we agree with Appellant (Appeal
Br. 7) that angled portion “L” cannot reasonably be considered an “entire
length” of the identified “base of the bottle.”
Under the broadest reasonable construction, the term “base of the
bottle” would also—as a second example—read on the structure identified
by the dashed boxes overlaid on a version of Figure A below:
Appeal 2014-003598
Application 13/524,433

5

In support of this view, we note that Appellant states that “one of ordinary
skill in the art would consider a ‘base’ of a ‘bottle’ to be the entire bottom
portion or the entire lowest part of something (e.g., a bottle in this
instance).” Reply Br. 3; see also id. (“Webster’s dictionary defines the term
‘base’ to be ‘the part on which something rests or is supported.’”).1 Even
under this view of “base of the bottle,” however, angled portion “L” cannot
reasonably be considered an “entire length” of the “base of the bottle.”
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, and also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–8 (which
depend from claim 1) or claims 12–18 (which depend from claim 11).
Rejection 2 – The rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1, and claims 19 and 20 depend
from claim 11. Appeal Br. 13, 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s reliance
on Eva does not remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of Bender,

1 Although Appellant seems to take the position that “base of the
bottle” should be limited to structure shaped like element 18 in Figure 2 of
the Specification (rather than, for example, a ring-shaped structure) (Appeal
Br. 4–5, 7; Reply Br. 3–4), we note that when construing a claim term, one
should not import narrower definitions for terms based on specific
embodiments in the specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appeal 2014-003598
Application 13/524,433

6
discussed above (see supra Rejection 1). Thus, for the same reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1–20.

REVERSED