Ex Parte PruiettDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201814212179 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/212,179 110057 7590 McGarry Bair PC 45 Ottawa Ave. SW Suite 700 FILING DATE 03/14/2014 08/23/2018 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jason W. Pruiett 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. 71189-3986 5916 EXAMINER HAKOMAKI, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): patents@mcgarrybair.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON W. PRUIETT Appeal2017-010989 1 Application 14/212, 1792 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND According to Appellant, "embodiments of the invention generally relate to dispensing a treating chemistry onto household surfaces," and more 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Dec. 21, 2016), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 23, 2017), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 6, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 28, 2016). 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is "BISSELL Homecare, Inc." Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-010989 Application 14/212,179 specifically, the Specification describes "a cap for closing an opening in a container" that is used for dispensing "treating chemistry." Spec. ,r,r 2, 4. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 1. A cap for closing an opening in a container, the container having a top wall in which the opening is formed, a bottom wall, and at least one container side wall extending between the top wall and the bottom wall defining a cavity for storing a material for dispensing through the cap, the cap comprising: an end face having at least one fluid inlet adapted to allow air to flow through the cap and at least one fluid outlet, separate from the at least one fluid inlet, adapted to allow liquid to flow through the cap; a seal provided adjacent the end face and configured to fluidly seal the at least one fluid outlet and the at least one fluid inlet; a side wall extending from the end face, the side wall having an interior surface configured to couple the cap with the container and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface; and at least a first retaining element extending from at least a portion of the exterior surface of the side wall; wherein air flows through the at least one fluid inlet and through the opening of the container into the cavity to pressurize the cavity to displace at least a portion of the material through the opening of the container and the at least one fluid outlet to dispense the material stored within the container. Appeal Br. 18. 2 Appeal2017-010989 Application 14/212,179 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as anticipated by Hansen. 3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hansen in view of Stillinger. 4 3. The Examiner rejects claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hansen in view of Conti. 5 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of independent claim 1. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hansen discloses a cap 42 as claimed including, inter alia, "a seal 98 provided adjacent the end face and configured to fluidly seal the at least one fluid outlet and the at least one fluid inlet." Final Act. 2 ( citing Hansen Fig. 3). In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds: [Hansen's] figure 3 does disclose a cap (42) having, among other elements, a seal 98 ( column 3, lines 52-57) provided adjacent the end face ( 46) and configured to fluidly seal the at least one fluid outlet (7 6) and the at least one fluid inlet (78). The seal also fluidly seals apertures ( 100 and 102) in that fluid are separated from each other and do not intermix. Similarly, elements (76 and 78) of end face (46) function as a seal in that there is no fluidic flow between therebetween. Ans. 9 (footnote in original omitted). 3 Hansen et al., US 5,884,679, iss. Mar. 23, 1999. 4 Stillinger et al., US 2002/0121531 Al, pub. Sept. 5, 2002. 5 Conti, US 4,062,466, iss. Dec. 13, 1977. 3 Appeal2017-010989 Application 14/212,179 We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has failed to show that Hansen discloses a cap with a seal as claimed. Appeal Br. 8-10. The Examiner relies upon element 42 as the claimed cap and first indicates that element 98 is the claimed seal. However, the claim requires that the seal is a part of the cap. We agree with Appellant that Hansen discloses that the element 98 is provided on cleaning machine 16 and not as a part of the cap 42. Further, the Examiner does not otherwise explain why the cleaning machine 16, including element 98, might be considered a portion of the cap 42. Thus, we are persuaded of error to the extent the Examiner relies on Hansen's element 98 as the seal required by claim 1. We note that, with respect to claims 6 and 7, the Examiner also identifies element 46 as a seal. See Final Act. 3--4. Further, in response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds that "elements (76 and 78) of end face ( 46) function as a seal in that there is no fluidic flow [] there between." Ans. 9. Thus, the Examiner appears to indicate that element 46 may also be considered a seal as required by claim 1. However, the Examiner does not adequately explain why element 46 may be considered a seal. Element 46 is identified as an end wall of Hansen's adapter 42 with nipples 76 and 78. See Hansen col. 3, 11. 30-39. Without further explanation from the Examiner, we see no indication that fluid flow between nipples 76 and 78 is prevented such that end face 46 may be considered a seal. See Hansen Fig. 5 (showing that nipples 76 and 78 are open to fluid flow on both the interior and exterior of container 18). Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Hansen's cap includes a seal as recited in claim 1. Thus, the Examiner has not identified how Hansen discloses each and every element 4 Appeal2017-010989 Application 14/212,179 of claim 1, as arranged in the claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 10. Re} ections 2 and 3 The Examiner does not rely on the art of record in a manner that cures the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 discussed above. Accordingly, on the record before us, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 8, 9, and 11-16. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1--4 and 6-16. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation