Ex Parte Przytulla et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 18, 2008

10910537 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DIETMAR PRZYTULLA and WILLIAM LIMA
__________

Appeal 2008-1698
Application10/910,537
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: September 18, 2008
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and ERIC GRIMES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
industrial barrel, which the Examiner has rejected as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses plastic barrels “provided exclusively on
the inside of their vertical walls with multiple, mutually spaced ribs, leaving
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

the exterior wall surface uniformly smooth and unchanged” (Spec. 3: 2-4).
The application’s Figure 7 is reproduced below:

The figure shows “a partial cross section of a rib-reinforced barrel
wall” (id. at 5: 2) with internal ribs 48 in barrel 46 (id. at 8: 25-26). The
Specification states that “[p]lastic barrels configured in this fashion offer
visibly improved stacking strength while not in any way complicating their
handling (e.g. by gripping by barrel loaders, or lateral rolling of the barrel)”
(id. at 3: 4-6).
DISCUSSION
1. CLAIMS
Claims 17-25, 32, and 34-37 are on appeal.1 Claims 17, 18, 23, and
32 are representative and read as follows:
17. A large-volume industrial barrel assembly comprising:
a thermoplastic blow molded open-top hollow barrel body including:
a barrel bottom; and

1 Claims 26-31, 33, and 38-44 are also pending but have been withdrawn
from consideration by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 2).
2
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

a substantially cylindrical single sidewall connected to the barrel
bottom and terminating in an upper rim, the sidewall having an inner surface
provided with a plurality of circumferentially spaced-apart, vertically
oriented ribs extending substantially along a height of the sidewall, wherein
the vertically oriented ribs define thicker wall regions spaced apart by
thinner wall regions formed on the inner surface;
a clamping ring; and
a substantially circular cover lid configured to seal the open-top barrel
body in conjunction with the clamping ring.

18. The industrial barrel assembly according to claim 17, wherein the
thicker wall regions and the thinner wall regions alternate around the inner
surface in a uniformly increasing and decreasing wave pattern.

23. The industrial barrel assembly according to claim 17, further comprising
a lateral fitting formed on the sidewall.

32. A closed bung-type barrel comprising:
a thermoplastic blow molded hollow barrel body including:
a barrel bottom;
a substantially cylindrical sidewall connected to the barrel bottom, the
sidewall comprising a smooth outer surface, an inner surface provided with a
plurality of circumferentially spaced-apart, vertically oriented ribs extending
substantially along a height of the sidewall, wherein the vertically oriented
ribs define materially thicker wall regions spaced apart by thinner wall
regions formed on the inner surface, the sidewall further comprising an outer
surface that is smooth in those regions opposite the vertically oriented ribs
provided on the inner surface; and
a barrel top provided with first and second lateral bung fittings.

2. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON SNYDER AND ROBBINS
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Snyder2 and Robbins.3 The Examiner finds that Snyder teaches a barrel

2 Snyder et al., U.S. Patent 4,257,527, issued March 24, 1981.
3 Robbins III, U.S. Patent 4,890,757, issued Jan. 2, 1990.
3
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

meeting all the limitations of claim 32 “except for the ribs defining
materially thicker wall regions spaced apart by thinner wall regions and a
smooth outer surface in the regions opposite to the inwardly extending
vertical ribs” (Ans. 4).
Snyder teaches a plastic barrel molded from thermoplastic material
(Snyder, col. 7, ll. 31-36). The barrel comprises a hollow barrel body (id. at
col. 4, ll. 13-16), a barrel bottom (id. at col. 3, ll. 4-6), a substantially
cylindrical sidewall (id. at col. 3, ll. 3-4), and a barrel top provided with two
bung fittings (id. at col. 5, ll. 46-51). Part of Snyder’s Figure 4 is
reproduced below:

The figure shows a cross-sectional view of Snyder’s barrel (id. at col.
4, ll. 1-2), which has “a plurality of continuous, inwardly projecting vertical
ribs 42 integrally formed in wall 4 at circumferentially spaced locations” (id.
col. 5, ll. 28-30). The vertical ribs are depressions in the external surface of
the sidewall that have walls the same thickness as the rest of the sidewall.
Snyder discloses that the “ribs reinforce the drum and add considerable
compressive strength to the sidewalls of the drum” (id. at col. 3, ll. 40-42).
4
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

We agree with the Examiner that Snyder’s barrel meets all the
limitations of claim 32 except those relating to the internal ribs and smooth
outer surface.
The Examiner finds that Robbins teaches a container having
“vertically oriented ribs that extend inwardly only in materially thicker wall
regions spaced apart by thinner wall regions and a smooth outer surface in
the regions opposite to the inwardly extending vertical ribs” (Ans. 4).
Robbins teaches a container made from a non-self-supporting plastic
material that is stiffened by a plurality of ribs to form a self-supporting side
wall (Robbins, col. 1, ll. 58-66). The ribs provide structural rigidity (id. at
col. 5, l. 22), and the web and ribs are “preferably formed of unitary plastic
material” (id. at col. 5, l. 6). Robbins’ Figures 1 and 3 are reproduced below:

Figure 1 (on the left) shows one embodiment of Robbins’ container
(id. at col. 3, ll. 65-66). Figure 3 (on the right) shows a partial cross-section
along line 3-3 in Figure 1 (id. at col. 4, ll. 1-2). Robbins states that, “[a]s
best illustrated in FIG. 3, the wall thickness t1 [sic, t2] of the ribs is greater
5
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

than the wall thickness t2 [sic, t1]of the material forming the webs” (id. at
col. 5, ll. 11-12). Figure 3 also shows that the outer surface opposite the ribs
is smooth, as recited in claim 32.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Snyder’s vertical ribs “to be materially thicker wall regions with smooth
opposed regions in order to minimize the use of plastic material to save
material costs and weight as taught by Robbins” (Ans. 4).
Appellants argue that this statement “seems contradicted by Snyder
itself, which states verbatim that …. Use of the ribs 42 however decreases
the amount of material and the wall thickness needed in the drum 2. . . . The
above Snyder quote shows that . . . making the ‘ribs’ solid would add weight
and would use more material.” (Appeal Br. 7-8.)
In response, the Examiner elaborated on his reasoning, as follows:
[T]he strength to weight ratio of the wall is increased by adding
material to the rib to make the rib thicker than an adjacent non-
rib portion. Although the weight is increased minimally by
increasing the thickness of the rib, the increase in strength is
proportionately much greater than the increase in weight. This
achieves a significantly better use of plastic than increasing all
thickness exactly the same and optimizes the use of plastic by
adding to the weight minimally to achieve a significant increase
in strength.
(Ans. 7.)
We agree with the Examiner that Snyder and Robbins support a prima
facie case of obviousness. Snyder discloses a barrel having vertical ribs that
“reinforce the drum and add considerable compressive strength to the
sidewalls of the drum” (Snyder, col. 3, ll. 40-42). Robbins teaches that solid
vertical ribs also “provide structural rigidity” (Robbins, col. 5, l. 22).
6
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

We agree with the Examiner that substituting solid ribs, like those
taught by Robbins, for the hollow ribs taught by Snyder would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As the Examiner has pointed
out, while doing so would minimally increase the weight of the barrel (and
the amount of plastic), it would also result in increased strength and would
be a more efficient use of material than increasing the thickness of the
barrel’s wall all the way around.
Snyder makes this same point: “[R]ibs 42 may not be needed . . .
when the thickness of the material forming the drum 2 is such that no
bulging of the drum would occur under normal conditions of use. Use of the
ribs 42, however, decreases the amount of material and the wall thickness
needed in the drum 2.” (Snyder, col. 5, ll. 37-43.) The skilled artisan would
have recognized that this same advantage would also apply to ribs that were
solid rather than hollow.
Appellants also argue that Snyder and Robbins are nonanalogous art
because “Robbins clearly is not in the same field of endeavor and the
[person skilled in the art] would not look to waste baskets to address a
bulging problem for expanding contents of a large-volume industrial barrel”
(Appeal Br. 7).
This argument is not persuasive. As Appellants recognize, prior art
references are considered analogous if they are “from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed,” or if they are “reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, both Snyder and
Robbins are concerned with the problem of providing vertical support to a
7
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

container, and both provide similar solutions to the problem: hollow vertical
ribs as taught by Snyder and solid vertical ribs as taught by Robbins. We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that the references are not so different as
to be considered nonanalogous.
Finally, Appellants argue that it “is possible only with a hindsight
analysis of the invention” to reach the Examiner’s conclusion that the
references would have suggested a smooth outer wall region opposite the
vertical ribs, “[s]ince it is evident that Snyder does not teach a smooth
surface” and Snyder does not suggest “why it would be desirable to have
solid ribs” (Appeal Br. 8-9).
This argument is also unpersuasive, because (as discussed above) we
conclude that the references, viewed as a whole, would have suggested
replacing Snyder’s hollow ribs with solid ones like those taught by Robbins.
The product suggested by the combined references, therefore, would have
the indentations of Snyder’s hollow ribs filled-in and thus would have a
smooth outer surface opposite the vertical ribs, as recited in claim 32.
The rejection of claim 32 as obvious in view of Snyder and Robbins is
affirmed.
3. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON SNYDER, ROBBINS, AND BORDNER
Claims 17-22, 24, and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Snyder, Robbins, and Bordner.4 Claims 17 and 18 have
been argued separately; claims 19-22, 24, and 34-36 will stand or fall with
claim 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

4 Bordner et al., U.S. Patent 5,785,201, issued July 28, 1998.
8
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

The Examiner relies on Snyder and Robbins for the teachings
discussed above (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds that “Bordner discloses a
molded barrel body having an open top, a clamping ring and a circular cover
lid sealed to the open top” (id. at 5), as recited in claim 17. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the barrel suggested by
Snyder and Robbins “to have a removable cover lid to provide access to the
barrel body interior for cleaning of the barrel interior and for replacement of
a damaged top wall without replacement of the entire barrel” (id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion.
Appellants argue that the same arguments made with respect to claim
32 also apply to claim 17 and its dependent claims (Appeal Br. 9). Those
arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Appellants also argue that “Snyder is a bung drum and a lid is not
specifically shown. Furthermore, the lid is not the critical element in claim
17.” (Appeal Br. 9.)
This argument does not persuade us that the rejection is improper.
The Examiner has shown that barrels with removable lids were known in the
art and has provided a reasonable basis on which to conclude that modifying
Snyder’s bung-type drum to have a removable lid would have been obvious.
Thus, the barrel lid recited in claim 17, whether critical or not, would have
been obvious.
With respect to claim 18, Appellants argue that “[n]either Snyder nor
Robbins and Bordner show any type of wave pattern with respect to the ribs
located at the interior of the drum” (Appeal Br. 9).
9
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

This argument is also unpersuasive. The Specification does not define
what makes a pattern of ribs a “uniformly increasing and decreasing wave
pattern,” as recited in claim 18. “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In our view, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “uniformly
increasing and decreasing wave pattern” is a pattern of projections that are
of substantially uniform height and distribution. Such a pattern is taught by
Snyder. See Snyder’s Figure 4, reproduced above. Appellants have
provided no basis on which to conclude that Snyder’s pattern of ribs does
not meet claim 18’s requirement for a “uniformly increasing and decreasing
wave pattern.”
We affirm the rejection of claims 17-22, 24, and 34-36 as obvious in
view of Snyder, Robbins, and Bordner.
4. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON SNYDER, ROBBINS, BORDNER, AND
DUNKEN
Claims 23, 25, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view of Snyder, Robbins, Bordner, and Dunken.5 Claims 25 and 37 stand
or fall with claim 17 because they were not argued separately. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner relies on Snyder, Robbins, and Bordner for the
teachings discussed above (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that “Dunken
teaches a lateral fitting” (id.), as recited in claim 23, and concludes that “[i]t
would have been obvious to add a lateral fitting to provide sidewall

5 Dunken et al., U.S. Patent 5,232,120, issued Aug. 3, 1993.
10
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

discharge of contents to eliminate the need to elevate then invert (turn
upside-down) the barrel for dispensing or to provide more access by a
sidewall discharge when access to a top opening is prevented or not desired”
(id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion.
Appellants argue that “the Snyder drum is a bung type drum and
requires a chime for the transport by forklift or parrot beak equipment. A
lateral fitting would go against the very object of Snyder to handling the
drum by ‘parrot beak’ equipment and against its stacking capacity” (Appeal
Br. 10).
This argument is unpersuasive. Dunken teaches a bulk shipping and
storage container (Dunken, abstract) that includes a recess at the base of its
lateral wall that “encloses and protects a female-threaded discharge hole 27
and a male-threaded drain valve 30” (id. at col. 7, ll. 63-65).
Snyder teaches that its barrel includes “a hollow annular upper chime
18 [that] is . . . molded integrally with vertical wall 4 and is connected to the
upper end of the wall 4” (Snyder, col. 4, ll. 39-41). “The chime 18 forms an
arcuate bearing surface for engagement by a ‘parrot beak’ device used on
conventional drum handling equipment” (id. at col. 4, ll. 46-49; see also Fig.
7).
It is not apparent to us from the references, and Appellants have not
adequately explained, why modifying Snyder’s barrel to include a recessed
fitting at the bottom of its lateral wall, as taught by Dunken, would have
interfered with the ability of parrot beak equipment to engage the chime at
11
Appeal 2008-1698
Application 10/910,537

the upper end of the lateral wall. Appellants’ argument is therefore
unpersuasive.
We affirm the rejection of claims 23, 25, and 37 as obvious in view of
Snyder, Robbins, Bordner, and Dunken.
SUMMARY
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal.
AFFIRMED
lp

HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD AVENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK NY 10017

12