Ex Parte Louis Schupp

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2011

11145205 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/145,205 06/03/2005 John William Louis Schupp SCHU-4273 2278
5409 7590 06/01/2011
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOHN WILLIAM LOUIS SCHUPP
________________

Appeal 2010-003627
Application 11/145,205
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003627
Application 11/145,205

2
A. Introduction1
John William Louis Schupp (“Schupp”) timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of claims 1-20, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a scented air filter in which the
extent of scent release can be varied by changing the extent to which scent-
releasing grid elements are exposed to the air flowing through the filter.
Representative Claim 1 reads:
1. A scented air filtration apparatus comprising:
an external frame;
an air filter, mounted in the frame; and,
a grid structure, operating with the frame to support the
air filter,
wherein the grid structure contains aromatic material
completely masked by removable cover elements.
(Claims App., Br. 47, indentation added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
A. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Wheless4 and Kappernaros.5

1 Application 11/145,205, Air Treatment Apparatus and Method of Use
Thereof, filed 3 June 2005. The specification is referred to as the
“205 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” The real party in interest is
listed as the inventor, John William Louis Schupp (Appeal Brief,
filed 17 July 2009 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office action mailed 13 May 2008 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
3 Examiner’s Answer mailed 22 October 2009 (“Ans.”). The Examiner has
withdrawn a rejection of all the claims for lack of written description.
(Ans. 2.)
Appeal 2010-003627
Application 11/145,205

3
B. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
combined teachings of Wheless, Kappernaros, and Ward.6
C. Claims 9-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Wheless and Kappernaros.
D. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Wheless, Kappernaros, and Ward.
E. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Wheless and Kappernaros.
F. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Wheless, Kappernaros, and
Ward.
G. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Wheless and Kappernaros.
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Initially, we find that Schupp has not presented substantively distinct
arguments for the patentability of any of the claims other than claim 1.
Accordingly, all claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii)
(2007).

4 Danny W. Wheless, Aromatic Filter System, U.S. Patent 5,817,168 (1998).
5 James Kappernaros, Air Conditioning System Filter with Variable Rate
Scent Release, U.S. Patent 4,959,087 (1990).
6 Robert Ward, Fragrant Scented Air Filter, U.S. Patent 4,604,114 (1986).
Appeal 2010-003627
Application 11/145,205

4
Schupp argues that “the Examiner’s proposed modifications render
the primary reference (Wheless) unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”
(Br. 30, 2d full para.) According to Schupp, that purpose is to provide a
system having an “effective period of fragrance transfer corresponding to the
life of the filter proper.” (Id., quoting Wheless, col. 1, ll. 5-8 (Examiner’s
emphasis omitted).)
The Examiner disagrees, citing various statements of Wheless’s
objects of the invention, including Wheless’s statement that a general object
of the invention is to provide an aromatic filter system for use in HVAC
systems (Wheless col. 1, ll. 33-34) and that “the period of scent transfer is
preferably coordinated with the useful life of the filter” (Wheless col. 2,
ll. 37-38). (Ans. 20, 2d para.) The Examiner also cites Wheless claim 7,
which recites a discrete grid that helps support the filter, the grid comprising
horizontal and vertical strands that span the filter, and “aromatic particles
impregnated in said strands adapted for transfer to the incoming forced air
stream passing through said filter.” (Ans. 20, 2d para., citing Wheless
claim 7 at Wheless col. 4, ll. 24-36.)
Review of Wheless confirms the Examiner’s findings. Wheless both
describes and claims scented grids in combination with filters that are not
designed to have the period of scent transfer strictly correlated with the
useful life of the filter. Thus, the Examiner has not based the conclusion of
obviousness on suggestions contrary to the teachings of Wheless. Schupp
has not substantiated any other explanation of error in the Examiner’s
rejections. We conclude Schupp has failed to demonstrate harmful error in
the Examiner’s findings or in the Examiner’s conclusions of fact and law.
Appeal 2010-003627
Application 11/145,205

5
C. Order
We AFFIRM all the rejections maintained by the Examiner.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
bar