11494040 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte McCutchen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2013

11494040 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID L. McCUTCHEN ____________ Appeal 2011-012331 Application 11/494,040 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012331 Application 11/494,040 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE David L. McCutchen (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 21-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “a vacuum cleaner having filters backflushed with ambient air.” See Spec., p. 1, l. 4. Claim 21 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 21. A vacuum cleaner receptacle comprising: a canister having an inlet port; a duct directing air flow from said inlet port downwardly in said canister; and a baffle disposed in a non-perpendicular plane relative to the downwardly directed air flow and co-operating with said duct to divide said canister into an upper zone of vortex air flow and a lower zone of reduced-velocity air flow. EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following evidence: Mitchell 3,853,517 Dec. 10, 1974 von Stackelberg 6,767,380 B2 Jul. 27, 2004 REJECTION Claims 21-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over von Stackelberg and Mitchell. Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-012331 Application 11/494,040 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that von Stackelberg discloses a vacuum cleaner receptacle comprising a canister 18 and a duct 11 directing air flow from canister inlet port 12 downwardly into the canister 18, a baffle 24 below an outlet end of the duct 11 directing air flow into a circumferential flow, the duct 11 extending from the inlet port to an outlet end and directing air flow from the inlet port 12 proximate a side wall 9 of the canister 18, the baffle 24 being sized to provide a barrier to a path of air flow from the duct 11. Ans. 3 (citing von Stackelberg, figs. 1-5 and col. 3, l. 55 - col. 5, l. 35). The Examiner finds that von Stackelberg does not disclose the baffle being disposed in a non-perpendicular plane relative to the directed air flow, but finds that Mitchell discloses a baffle 32 disposed in a non-perpendicular plane relative to the directed air flow. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the canister of von Stackelberg with Mitchell’s baffle to prevent formation of a vortex within the canister. Id. Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s stated reason for combining the cited references, arguing that claim 21 recites using a baffle to convert downward flow into two zones of circumferential flow (one zone including a vortex), and the Examiner’s stated reasoning, that it would have been obvious to modify von Stackelberg’s canister with Mitchell’s baffle to prevent formation of a vortex within the canister, is contrary to Appellant’s claim 21, which causes, rather than prevents, the formation of a vortex in at least one of the two claimed zones, and Appellant’s claim 22, which converts downward flow into circular flow, rather than converting circular flow into downward flow. App. Br. 11-12. Appeal 2011-012331 Application 11/494,040 4 The Examiner responds that Mitchell teaches an air inlet duct 30 opening tangentially into a canister, and baffles 32 extending inwardly from the inner wall of the housing 34 to act as a cyclonic dam to prevent the formation of a vortex by directing the incoming air in a downward direction toward the container 14 where the dust or other entrained particles are collected. Ans. 5 (citing Mitchell, col. 2, ll. 31-34). The Examiner finds this teaching to be the same as claim 21’s recited “lower zone of reduced- velocity air flow.” The Examiner therefore finds that the baffles of Mitchell prevent formation of a vortex at the bottom of a container where dust is collected, which is the same as Appellant’s invention to provide a reduced velocity air flow at a lower zone of the canister. Id. Claim 21 recites the baffle cooperating with the duct to divide the canister into an upper zone of vortex air flow and a lower zone of reduced velocity airflow. Claim 22 recites the baffle disposed in a plane non- perpendicular to a downwardly-directed airflow and directing the downward flow to a circumferential flow. The Examiner’s stated result of combining Mitchell with von Stackelberg, set forth in the proffered reason for adding Mitchell’s baffles to von Stackelberg’s canister - “to prevent formation of a vortex within the canister” - is contrary to claim 21’s requirement that the baffle be capable of cooperating with the duct to divide the canister into an upper zone of vortex flow and a lower zone of reduced velocity airflow, and fails to address whether one skilled in the art could combine von Stackelberg with Mitchell such that Mitchell’s baffle could be placed within von Stackelberg’s canister to direct von Stackelberg’s downwardly-directed flow to a circumferential flow. Appeal 2011-012331 Application 11/494,040 5 We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 21-29 as unpatentable over von Stackelberg and Mitchell. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over von Stackelberg and Mitchell. REVERSED mls