Ex Parte Otterson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2007

10816664 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT C. OTTERSON
____________

Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: August 28, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664

I. BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a high pressure washing apparatus for flat
surfaces (Specification 1:11-12). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. Apparatus for cleaning a surface, comprising:

a wheeled chassis;

an engine and a high pressure pump mounted to the
chassis, the pump having an inlet and a high pressure outlet;

a rotary valve mounted to the chassis and fluidly
connected to the high pressure outlet and having at least two wands
connected to the rotary valve so that rotation of the valve causes the
wands to rotate; and

a nozzle mounted to each wand and oriented so that high
pressure water is sprayed from the nozzles toward the surface.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Poppitz US 6,012,645 Jan. 11, 2000

The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Poppitz.
II. DISCUSSION
We have considered the issues on appeal in accordance with
Appellant’s groupings of the claims. In accordance with Appellant’s
groupings, and the disposition of the issues on appeal, we need only consider
the issues as they relate to independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claim
4.
2
Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664

Turning first to claim 1, the issue on appeal arising from the
contentions of the Appellant and the Examiner is: Would it have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the high pressure washer apparatus
construction art to have mounted a high pressure pump and engine on the
chassis of Poppitz’s high pressure washer? For the following reasons, we
answer that question in the affirmative.
Poppitz describes a high pressure washer that dispenses a water-based
cleaning solution onto a surface to clean that surface. Poppitz discloses the
use of a pump or other pressure source to deliver the water, but the location
of the pump is not shown (col. 2, ll. 36-39). Nor does Poppitz discuss how
the pump is powered.
Appellant contends that Poppitz does not describe or suggest
mounting the pump on the chassis, and “[w]hile it is true that a pump
requires some kind of engine to power it, Poppitz does not supply the
teaching of how the pump would be powered or mounted with an engine on
a chassis.” (Second Reply Br. 12.)
We cannot agree with Appellant that the fact that Poppitz itself does
not supply the suggestion means there is insufficient evidence to support the
rejection. In an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the
artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226
USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We do not read Poppitz in a vacuum, but
with the understanding of those of ordinary skill in the high pressure washer
apparatus art.
Appellant’s own Specification provides evidence with regard to the
knowledge possessed by those of ordinary skill in the pressure washer art.
As described in Appellant’s Specification, high pressure washers with
3
Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664

triggered wands typically were constructed with a pump and an engine
mounted onto a wheeled chassis so they could be easily moved
(Specification 1:16-23). Given the knowledge possessed by those of
ordinary skill in the high pressure washing apparatus art, we agree with the
Examiner that there was an apparent reason to combine the known pump and
engine assembly of the known triggered wand-type pressure washers with
the chassis-based apparatus of Poppitz. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (“Often, it will be
necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the
effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
the patent at issue.”).
We conclude that it would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill constructing high pressure washers to have mounted a high pressure
pump and engine on the chassis of Poppitz’s high pressure floor cleaning
machine. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1 and those claims
standing or falling with claim 1, namely, claims 2, 3, and 5-8.
Turning to claim 9, the issue with regard to this claim is: Is the skirt
32 of Poppitz a “diffuser plate means” within the meaning of the claim? We
answer this question in the negative for the following reasons.
Skirt 32 of Poppitz is a continuous annular band of rubber or plastic
material that confines the high pressure washing fluid mist emanating from
jets 83 and 89 to the chamber 34 within the chassis (housing 22) (col. 2, ll.
54-66; Figs. 4 and 5). Claim 9, by contrast, requires a “diffuser plate means
4
Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664

for interrupting the rotary spray pattern in at least part of the 360° rotary
spray pattern.” The 360° rotary spray pattern is the spray pattern made by
directing water sprayed from a pair of nozzles toward a surface (see the high
pressure water distribution means clause of claim 9). Skirt 32 does not
interrupt the 360° spray pattern as claimed, it merely vertically surrounds the
spray pattern. Nor is the skirt 32 a “plate,” i.e., a flat sheet of material.
We conclude that skirt 32 is not a “diffuser plate means” within the
meaning of claim 9. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 9,
and those claims dependent on claim 9, namely, claims 10-15.
The only claim left for consideration is claim 4. Claim 4 requires “a
pair of diffuser plates mounted to the chassis between the nozzles and the
surface such that the diffuser plates occlude at least a portion of the path,”
“the path” being the circular path of the water issuing from the rotating
nozzles (see claims 2 and 3 from which claim 4 depends). Skirt 32 is not in
the claimed location, i.e., it is not in a location such that it occludes the
claimed circular water path. Nor is it a pair of plates.
We conclude that skirt 32 is not “a pair of diffuser plates” as required
by claim 4. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
III. CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 4 and 9-15.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is, accordingly, affirmed-in-part.

5
Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664

V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tf/ls

Hancock Hughey LLP
P.O. Box 1208
Sisters, OR 97759
6