Ex Parte Richards

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12427341 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
18107-1-0015 6734
EXAMINER
MULLER, BRYAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/427,341 04/21/2009
26135 7590 02/28/2
LOTT & FISCHER, P.L.
P.O. BOX 141098
CORAL GABLES, EL 33114-1098
Edward Richards
02/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD RICHARDS
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,3411
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 11, 13, and 14. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1 According to the Appellant, “[t]he real party in interest is Edward
Richards.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,341
1. A surface cleaner, comprising:
a sealed continuous tank having an upper portion and a
lower portion said continuous tank adapted for holding a fluid in
said lower portion and air in said upper portion;
a pneumatic vacuum pump having an inlet and an exhaust;
a fluid pressure pump having an inlet and an exhaust;
a cleaning head portion having an inner cleaning chamber
and an annular vacuum chamber, said inner cleaning chamber
forming a hollow cavity which is bounded at its lower end by a
surface to be cleaned, said annular vacuum chamber having an
inlet lip disposed at the periphery of said inner cleaning chamber;
one or more jet nozzles mounted within said inner cleaning
chamber;
wherein said inlet of said pressure pump is in fluid
communication with said lower portion of said sealed continuous
tank drawing fluid therefrom;
wherein said exhaust of said pressure pump is in fluid
communication with said one or more jet nozzles thus ejecting
said drawn fluid from said sealed tank portion into said inner
cleaning chamber through said one or more jet nozzles;
wherein said inlet of said vacuum pump is in fluid
communication with said upper portion of said sealed continuous
tank maintaining a lower than atmospheric pressure therein;
wherein said exhaust of said vacuum pump is in fluid
communication with one or more air inlets to said inner cleaning
chamber providing positive air pressure into said inner cleaning
chamber and maintaining a higher than atmospheric pressure in
said inner cleaning chamber;
wherein said inlet lip of said annular vacuum chamber is
in fluid communication with said upper portion of said
continuous sealed tank whereby said fluid ejected into said inner
cleaning chamber is drawn into said inlet lip and returned to said
upper portion of said continuous sealed tank; and
wherein said one or more air inlets to said inner cleaning
chamber are separate structures from said one or more jet
nozzles.
2
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,341
Rejections
Claims 1,2, and 4—6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2002/0184730 Al, pub. Dec. 12, 2002,
hereinafter “Allen”), Williams (US 5,168,599, iss. Dec. 8, 1992), and Geyer
et al. (US 6,896,742 B2, iss. May 24, 2005, hereinafter “Geyer”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Allen, Williams, Geyer, and Domier (US 6,269,517 Bl, iss. Aug. 7, 2001).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Allen, Williams, Geyer, and Bowles (US 3,075,227, iss. Jan. 29, 1963).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Allen, Williams, Geyer, Bowles, and Domier.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4—6
Independent claim 1 recites:
wherein said exhaust of said vacuum pump is in fluid
communication with one or more air inlets to said inner cleaning
chamber providing positive air pressure into said inner cleaning
chamber and maintaining a higher than atmospheric pressure in
said inner cleaning chamber.
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Appellant appears to refer to this limitation as
“the pressurized cleaning chamber limitation.” Appeal Br. 15; see id. at 13—
14. The Appellant primarily argues that Allen, Williams, and Geyer fail to
describe “the pressurized cleaning chamber limitation.” See id. at 13—18.
We have considered this argument and the remaining arguments in the
Appeal Brief and determined that they are not persuasive for the reasons
provided by the Examiner in the Answer at pages 6—8.
3
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,341
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant offers numerous arguments in
response to some points made in the Examiner’s Answer. Reply
Br. 2—A. The Appellant argues that Allen’s exhaust port 52 is not
pressurized, essentially maintaining the argument that Allen fails to
describe “the pressurized cleaning chamber limitation.” See id. at 3—
4; see also Appeal Br. 13—15. The Appellant asserts that the
Examiner’s finding that Allen’s exhaust port 52 is pressurized is
conclusory and defies reasonableness because “[i]t is elemental that
any air moving at high velocity through an ‘exhaust port’ or an
‘exhaust line’ would generate below-atmospheric pressure within the
port.” Reply Br. 3^4. Additionally, the Appellant argues that
“Allen’s exhaust port 52, creates a vacuum, not above-atmospheric
pressure.” Id. at 4 (citing Allen 199). The Appellant’s argument is
not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed cleaning
chamber corresponds to an area within exhaust line 52. Ans. 6—8
(annotating Allen’s Fig. 8). Allen’s Figure 8, as annotated by the
Examiner, is reproduced below:
Allen’s Figure 8 is an enlarged view of the recirculating vacuum cleaning
nozzle of Allen’s Figure 6 (see Allen 154), and the Examiner’s annotations
4
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,341
include a shaded region within exhaust line 52 and two uses of the letter “A”
with two arrows emanating from each letter directed toward the shaded
region. The Examiner finds that the shaded region in the annotated figure
corresponds with the claimed “cleaning chamber.” Ans. 6—8. Indeed,
Allen’s Figure 8 shows discharge air 56 flowing from a motor to atmosphere
via exhaust line 52, and as such, discharge air 56 provides positive air
pressure in exhaust line 52 and maintains a higher than atmospheric pressure
within exhaust line 52. See id. at 6; see also Allen, Fig. 6,1 87.
The Appellant argues that Allen’s exhaust line 52 is not a “hollow
cavity.” Reply Br. 4. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Initially,
we fail to understand how exhaust line 52 is not a hollow cavity as the
interior of exhaust line 52 is a hollow space through which discharge air 56
flows. Further, we note that claim 1 recites “said inner cleaning chamber
form[s] a hollow cavity which is bounded at its lower end by a surface to be
cleaned.” Appeal Br., Claims App. As such, claim 1 clearly defines the
lower bound of the cleaning chamber to be at the surface to be cleaned.
And, the area between the outlet of Allen’s exhaust line 52 and the surface to
be cleaned also includes a hollow space.
The Appellant contends that Allen’s exhaust line 52 “cannot
reasonably be considered a ‘cleaning chamber’” because “no cleaning
whatsoever occurs within the exhaust port of Allen and therefore it is
unreasonable to refer to it as a cleaning chamber.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
added). The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive. As discussed above,
the claims define the lower bound of the cleaning chamber to be at the
surface to be cleaned. As such, there is no reason to exclude the area
between the outlet of exhaust line 52 and the floor surface. And, Allen’s
5
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,341
device cleans the surface below the outlet of exhaust line 52. See also Allen,
Fig. 6,2, 100. In other words, the Appellant’s argument, which is
premised on cleaning being required to occur within the exhaust port of
Allen, is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The Appellant also contends that “Allen’s exhaust port 52 cannot
physically accommodate jet nozzles that would be effective at cleaning the
surface at the bottom of the device” and “[a]ny such nozzles would not be
effective as exhaust port 52 is a narrow horizontal passage that would block
the nozzles.” Reply Br. 4. The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive as it
is not based on persuasive evidence or technical reasoning, and appears to be
the opinion of the Appellant’s attorney. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405 (CCPA 1974) (Attorney’s arguments in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence).
We have considered the remaining arguments in the Reply Brief and
determine that they are not persuasive. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4—6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Allen, Williams, and Geyer.
Dependent claim 11
The Appellant asserts that claim 11 depends from independent claim 1
and is patentable for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Appeal Br.
18. For the same reasons we have sustained the rejection of claim 1, we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Allen, Williams, Geyer, and Domier.
6
Appeal 2015-005534
Application 12/427,341
Independent claim 13
The Appellant asserts that independent claim 13 is patentable for the
same reasons as independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 18—19. For the same
reasons we have sustained the rejection of claim 1, we likewise sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Allen, Williams, Geyer, and Bowles.
Dependent claim 14
The Appellant asserts that claim 14 depends from independent claim
13 is patentable for the same reasons as independent claim 13. Appeal
Br. 19—20. For the same reasons we have sustained the rejection of claim
13, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Allen, Williams, Geyer, Bowles, and
Domier.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 11,
13, and 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7