Ex Parte Roselle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12475689 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/475,689 0610112009
27752 7590 06/02/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Patent Services - Legal IP
Central Building, CS
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Joseph Roselle
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.
11095MQ 3969
EXAMINER
LU,JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN JOSEPH ROSELLE, COREY MICHAEL BISCHOFF,
LIEVEN RICHARD DEKETELE, STEFAN H. HOLLINGER, STEPHAN
JAMES ANDREAS MESCHKAT, and ANDRE CHRISTIAN CONVENTS
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian Joseph Roselle et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) claims 1--4, 7, 8, 11-15, and 17-21 as unpatentable over Wright (US
2007/0151310 Al; pub. July 5, 2007), Irving (US 4,682,424; iss. July 28,
1987), and Silver (US 6,889,449 B2; iss. May 10, 2005); (2) claims 5, 6, 9,
10, and 22 as unpatentable over Wright, Irving, Silver, and Jarosch (US
5,099,587; iss. Mar. 31, 1992); and (3) claim 16 as unpatentable over
Wright, Irving, Silver, and Hart (US 5,560,124; iss. Oct. 1, 1996). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "a device for treating fabrics."
Spec. 3: 12; Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A device for treating fabrics comprising: a cabinet, said
cabinet comprising:
a. a shell forming an opening, the shell comprising a pair
of sidewalls; and
b. a extractable drawer comprising:
i. an drawer face comprising an outer surface; and
ii. a supporting member,
wherein said drawer face and said supporting member
form a receiving region adapted to operably support a
fabric, and wherein said extractable drawer is adapted to
fit within said shell and can be extracted through said
opening of said shell;
c. a heating element contained within said device;
d. an air flow path positioned to direct air through said
receiving region; and
e. a plurality of liquid dispensing heads positioned within
said shell on the sidewalls of said shell.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Wright, Irving, and Silver
Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 11-15, and 17-21
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "a plurality of liquid
dispensing heads positioned within said shell on the sidewalls of said shell."
Br. 4, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Wright discloses claim 1
substantially as claimed. See Final Act. 2. The Examiner relies on Silver for
2
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
a device "comprising a plurality of liquid dispensing heads 48 positioned
within a shell on the sidewalls of said shell." See id. at 3 (citing Silver, Fig.
2); see also Ans. 6; Br. 2. 1
Appellants contend that Silver "does not disclose a plurality of liquid
dispensing heads positioned within the shell on the sidewall of the shell ....
In Silver, Figure 2, the spray heads 48 are in the comers of the interior of the
cabinet, not in the sidewall of the shell, as claimed." Br. 2.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
Silver [] teaches a fabric treating device with a plurality of liquid
dispensing heads 48 positioned within a shell on the sidewalls of
said shell (see Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 54-56). Silver specifically
states that the spray heads 48 are mounted in the upper portion
of the sanitizing cabinet 10 (col. 3, lines 54-56). The [E]xaminer
has interpreted the upper portion of the cabinet 10 includes the
sidewalls or parts thereof as shown in Fig. 2. Moreover, ... the
comer is formed by the sidewalls of the cabinet.
Ans. 6. The Examiner's findings are based on rational underpinnings.
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Appellants further contend:
[T]here is no motivation to combine the references as cited.
[Wright] and Irving are related to an apparatus that ultimately
dries an article of clothing contained therein. Silver is related to
an apparatus that sprays water into the interior of a cabinet to
deplete ozone after sporting equipment contained therein is
disinfected with ozone. There is also no motivation to combine
[Wright] and Irving with Silver since [Wright] and Irving are
related to providing for a dry garment after treatment whereas
Silver is about spraying water within a cabinet to deplete ozone,
which would presumably result in wetting the articles contained
1 The Examiner relies on Irving for disclosing a heating element contained
within a device. See Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
Br. 2.
within the cabinet. One skilled in the art would not combine a
reference that wets an article with a pair of references that are
related to ultimately providing a dry article.
The two separate tests for determining whether a prior art reference is
analogous are: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the reference is not within the
inventor's field of endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442
(Fed.Cir.1986) andin re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
[The] prior art references are directed to fabric treating devices
and method. The prior art patents to Wright, Irving and Silver,
are all related to treating and conditioning the fabric to be treated.
In particular, the primary reference to Wright does show and
teach the device is for sanitizing fabric (paragraph 0169-0170).
The Silver patent also teaches the device for sanitizing clothes
and apparel. The prior art patents are classified in the fabric
treatment related classes dealing with fabric treatments, e.g.
removal wrinkles, odors, dampness, etc. and so the cited prior art
references are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, one
skilled in the art would have looked into these areas for teachings
and suggestions in treating fabrics.
Ans. 7. In other words, the Examiner concludes that Silver is within the
inventors' field of endeavor. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence
or argument apprising us of error in the Examiner's findings or conclusions. 2
2 Appellants' Specification describes: "Fabric treatment devices which are
used to remove odors and wrinkles from clothing are known. These devices
can generally be split into two categories, steam generating devices and fluid
4
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
Additionally, the Examiner provides reasons with rational
underpinnings to combine Wright, Irving, and Silver, namely, to include a
heating element within the device of Wright as taught by Irving "in order
to heat the air within the cabinet" and to further modify the device of Wright
and Irving to include a plurality of liquid dispensing heads on the sidewalls
as taught by Silver "in order to spray fluid into the cabinet for treatment of
the fabric." Ans. 6; see also id. at 7; Final Act. 3. Appellants do not apprise
us of error or that the Examiner's rationale lacks articulated reasoning with
rational underpinnings to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Wright, Irving, and
Silver. Appellants do not present arguments for the patentability of
dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, 11-15, and 17-21 apart from claim 1. Br. 2. As
such, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we likewise
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, 11-15, and
17-21 as unpatentable over Wright, Irving, and Silver.
dispensing devices which wet the fabrics with water, chemical compositions,
or combinations thereof Devices of both categories typically wet the fabric
with steam or the fluid, then subject the wetted fabric with heat and circulating
air to allow the fabric to be dried, thereby decreasing any odors and wrinkles."
Spec. 1:3-8 (emphasis added).
5
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
Obviousness over Wright, Irving, Silver, and Jarosch
Claim 22
Appellants contend that "[t]he references, as cited, when combined,
do not disclose that the liquid dispensing heads are positioned within
protrusions of the sidewalls as [in claim 22]." Br. 2.
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner finds:
[Figures 12-14] of the Jarosch patent clearly show the head
portion 14 (right side of 14a) is located and positioned within the
protrusions of the sidewalls 11 a. In particular, the head portion
14 extends from the interior protrusion (at lla) to nozzle
assembly 14 (left side of 14a) toward the cabinet interior.
Ans. 8. The Examiner's findings are based on rational underpinnings.
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Br. 3.
Appellants further contend:
[T]here is no motivation to combine Jarosch with [Wright].
[\Vright] is related to an apparatus that ultimately dries an article
of clothing contained therein. Jarosch is related to an apparatus
for drying a human after bathing. One skilled in art would not
combine a reference for drying a human with a reference for
drying a clothing article since the technical attributes required of
the systems, such as temperature and drying time, would likely
be so different.
As discussed above, the two separate tests for determining whether a
prior art reference is analogous are: ( 1) whether the art is from the same field
of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the reference is
not within the inventor's field of endeavor, whether the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (citations omitted).
6
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
At the outset, Appellants do not identify record evidence supporting
the contention that "the technical attributes required of the [drying] systems
[of Wright and Jarosch], such as temperature and drying time, would likely
be so different." Br. 3. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
Further, in response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds that
Wright, Irving, Silver, and Jarosch "are directed to drying art." Ans. 8. In
other words, the Examiner concludes that Jarosch is within the inventors'
field of endeavor. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or
argument apprising us of error in the Examiner's findings. The Examiner
further reasons that modifying Wright, Irving, and Silver to include
"dispensing heads [] positioned within protrusions[,]" as taught by Jarosch,
would "sav[e] space." Ans. 8.
Jarosch discloses (1) "[a]n assembly for efficiently supplying heated
air to an enclosed area for drying the body of a person after bathing"; and
(2) "[t]he assembly includes blower means, duct means and heating means
of special construction and location so as to more efficiently supply heated
air to the bathing area." Jarosch, Abstract (emphasis added). Appellants'
Specification describes that "there remains a need for a device [that] is
sufficiently time and energy efficient, minimizes space consumption, and is
user friendly." Spec. 3:8-10 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:8-10. One
of ordinary skill in the art would look to devices, such as Jarosch's drying
device, that utilize an energy and space efficient assembly to supply heated
air to an enclosed area. See Ans. 8. Consequently, we find no error in the
Examiner's assessment that Jarosch is analogous art.
7
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
Additionally, the Examiner provides a reason with rational
underpinnings to combine Wright, Irving, Silver, and Jarosch, namely, to
modify Wright, Irving, and Silver to include "dispensing heads [] positioned
within protrusions[,]" as taught by Jarosch, "in order to provide the device
with a separate housing for containing dispensing nozzles and saving space."
See Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 4. Appellants do not apprise us of error or
that the Examiner's rationale lacks articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 22 as unpatentable over Wright, Irving, Silver,
and J arosch.
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10
1A .. ppellants do not present arguments for the patentability of claims 5,
6, 9, and 10 apart from claim 1. Br. 2-3. As such, for reasons similar to
those discussed above for claim 1, we likewise sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Wright,
Irving, Silver, and Jarosch.
Obviousness over Wright, Irving, Silver, and Hart
Claim 16
Appellants do not present arguments for the patentability of claim 16
apart from claim 1. Br. 3. As such, for reasons similar to those discussed
above for claim 1, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
8
Appeal2014-003516
Application 12/475,689
claim 16 as unpatentable over Wright, Irving, Silver, and Hart.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9