Ex Parte Nelson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13052814 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/052,814 03/21/2011
79958 7590
Masco Corporation
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
300 North Meridian Street
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
09/27/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alfred Charles Nelson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DFC-P0044-05 7153
EXAMINER
SCHNEIDER, CRAIG M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
inteas@faegrebd.com
douglas.yerkeson@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFRED CHARLES NELSON
Appeal2014-009869
Application 13/052,814
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CAL VE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-3, 5, 7, 9-16, 20, 22-25, and 27-32. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 4, 6, 8, 17-19,
21, and 26 have been withdrawn. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-009869
Application 13/052,814
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, 24, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A faucet comprising:
a faucet head;
a supply tube fluidly coupled to the faucet head;
a faucet body including a dispensing end having a wall,
the wall having an internal surface and an external surface, the
internal surface defining an elongate passageway, the supply tube
passing through the elongate passageway; and
a magnetic coupling releasably coupling the faucet head
to the dispensing end of the faucet body, the magnetic coupling
including a magnet fixed to at least one of the faucet head and the
faucet body.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16, 20, 23-25, and 27-32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bosio (US 2003/0188381 Al, pub.
Oct. 9, 2003) and Cator (US 3,181,895, iss. May 4, 1965).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bosio, Cator, and Esche (US 6,757,921 B2, iss. July 6, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16, 20, 23-25, and 27-32 as unpatentable over Bosio
and Cator
The Examiner found that Bosio teaches a faucet, substantially as
claimed, except for a magnetic coupling that releasably couples the faucet
head to the faucet body. Non-Final Act. 3, 5---6. The Examiner found that
Cator teaches this feature. Id. at 3. The Examiner determined that it would
have been obvious to substitute Cator's magnetic coupling for Bosio's snap-
fit coupling as a known equivalent retainer for expected results. Id. at 3--4.
2
Appeal2014-009869
Application 13/052,814
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided any rational
underpinning for combining Bosio and Cator or explaining why a magnetic
coupling of Cator "is a known equivalent" of the snap connection of Bosio.
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also argues that a skilled artisan would not have
found the magnetic coupling of Cator to be a known equivalent to be used in
place of the snap connection of Bosio. Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellant asserts
that a magnetic coupling would not provide the same results as a snap-action
coupling, as the Examiner found, and snap-action couplings are described in
the background of the application as prior art that "may degrade with use,"
so the invention seeks to avoid that problem. Reply Br. 2-3; see also Spec.
,-r 3. As a result, Appellant argues that the Examiner's mere statement that
"the magnetic coupling would provide the same expected results as the snap-
action retention means" does not provide an adequate rational underpinning
for combining teachings of Bosio and Cator. Id. at 3; Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner's rationale for using Cator's magnetic coupling in the
faucet of Bosio is not supported by a rational underpinning. The Examiner's
finding that Cator' s magnetic coupling is a known equivalent to Bosio' s
snap-action retention means and interchangeable therewith (Non-Final Act.
3--4; Ans. 2-3, 7) is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. In this
regard, Appellant provides evidence that resilient snap connections (as in
Bosio) can provide too much retaining force for some users to overcome to
uncouple a faucet head and also experience a decrease in the retaining force
from continual use, in contrast to magnetic couplings. See Spec. i-fi-13---6, 38,
41, 50; Nelson Declaration ,-r 10. Magnet couplers, on the other hand, may
be uncoupled easily by twisting and do not use moving parts that degrade
over time like some snap-fit couplings. Cator, 1 :28-39, 2:42-50; Spec. ,-r 3.
3
Appeal2014-009869
Application 13/052,814
The Examiner's stated reason for combining Bosio and Cator cites no
evidence to support a finding that a magnetic coupling would be equivalent
to a threaded fitting or a snap fitting and interchangeable therewith. See
Ans. 2-3, 7; Non-Final Act. 3--4. Cator teaches that a magnetic coupling is
an improvement to previous coupling means having locking detents, springs,
and sleeves, because it is inexpensive with fewer parts and no moving parts.
Cator, 1 :9-31. The magnetic force can be controlled within a desired range
by controlling the size and flux density of the magnets. Id. at 1 :31-34. The
magnets may be uncoupled simply by a quarter-tum twist. Id. at 2:32-50.
Nor has the Examiner explained why Cator's objective of replacing
the moving parts of a detent mechanism with magnetic force would have
motivated a skilled artisan to replace Bosio's snap connection with Cator's
magnetic coupling. Bosio i-fi-1 20-21. The Examiner has not explained why a
teaching to replace an expensive detent that has multiple moving parts with a
magnet would have led a skilled artisan to replace an inexpensive, simple
snap wing 8a, 8b connection of Bosio with the magnetic coupling of Cator.
A claim "composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely
by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art." KSR, Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16, 20, 23-25, and 27-
32. Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 24 recites a faucet including a
magnetic coupling that releasably couples the faucet head or sprayhead to
the faucet dispensing end or delivery spout, and independent claim 25 recites
a faucet coupling and uncoupling method using a magnetic force. The
Examiner relied on the same teachings of Bosio and Cator and rationale to
reject each of claims 1, 14, 24, and 25. See Non-Final Act. 3--4, 5-6.
4
Appeal2014-009869
Application 13/052,814
Claim 22 as unpatentable over Bosio, Cator, and Esche
The Examiner's reliance on Esche to teach a water outlet including an
aerator does not remedy the defects in the reasoning to combine Bosio and
Cator discussed above as to claim 14, from which claim 22 depends. Appeal
Br. 26. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-16, 20, 22-25,
and 27-32.
REVERSED
5