Ex Parte Samuels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

13608640 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 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.
13/608,640 09/10/2012 Benedict Nicholas Samuels 424662057100 8144
25227 7590 08/10/2017
MORRTSON fr FOFRSTFR T T P
EXAMINER
1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD BERRY, STEPHANIE R
SUITE 400
MCLEAN, VA 22102 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2017 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):
EOfficeVA @ mofo.com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENEDICT NICHOLAS SAMUELS,
MARK STAMFORD VANDERSTEGEN-DRAKE,
ANDRE DAVID BROWN, and JAMES DYSON
Appeal 2016-003532
Application 13/608,640
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Benedict Nicholas Samuels et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dyson Technology
Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003532
Application 13/608,640
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An autonomous vacuum cleaner comprising a chassis having
at least one traction unit for supporting the chassis on a surface
and a cleaner head defining a dirty air inlet, a body carried on the
chassis and being movable relative to it in response to a collision
with an obstacle, the body including at least one of an airflow
generator for generating an airflow along an airflow path from
the dirty air inlet to a clean air outlet and a separating apparatus
mounted thereto and positioned in the airflow path to separate
dirt from the air, wherein the vacuum cleaner further comprises
a sensing mechanism for sensing relative movement between the
chassis and the body.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Yokoi US 4,306,329 Dec. 22, 1981
McDonald US 2004/0117064 A1 June 17,2004
Haegermarck US 2004/0143930 A1 July 29, 2004
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McDonald and Haegermarck. Final Act. 2—6.
II. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McDonald, Haegermarck, and Yokoi. Id. at 6.
2
Appeal 2016-003532
Application 13/608,640
OPINION
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 recites an autonomous vacuum cleaner including,
in relevant part, “a chassis having at least one traction unit. . . [and] a body
carried on the chassis and being movable relative to it in response to a
collision with an obstacle, the body including at least one of an airflow
generator . . . and a separating apparatus.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Independent claim 17 similarly recites “a chassis including a drive
arrangement, and a body mounted on the chassis and adapted to be movable
relative to it in response to a collision with an object, the body including at
least one further electronic component.” Id. at 19.
The Examiner finds that McDonald teaches most of the limitations of
the independent claims including “a chassis (12) having at least one traction
unit (considered the supporting wheels as shown in Fig. 1) for supporting
the chassis on a surface, [and] a body carried on the chassis ([0026]) and
being movable relative to it in response to a collision with an obstacle
([0027]).” Final Act. 3; see Ans. 2 (explaining that the wheels also
correspond to the “drive arrangement” recited in claim 17). The Examiner
acknowledges that McDonald does not teach “the body including at least one
of an airflow generator . . . and a separating apparatus mounted thereto.”
Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner finds that Haegermarck teaches “[a]
body including at least one of an airflow generator ([0008]; considered the
disclosed vacuum source and vacuum fan unit) . . . and a separating
apparatus ([0008]; considered the disclosed . . . filter arrangement such
as cyclone separator).” Id.', see Ans. 4 (explaining that the vacuum source
and vacuum fan unit also correspond to the “electronic component” recited
3
Appeal 2016-003532
Application 13/608,640
in claim 17). The Examiner explains that Haegermarck’s vacuum fan unit
and filter arrangement are “enclosed by the housing (10) and mounted to the
bottom part (wherein mounting the interior components to a bottom part
or base is well known in the art),” and “front part (13) [is] movable
relative to the bottom part (11 considered the body).” Ans. 6. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the robotic
cleaning device of McDonald to comprise a cleaning head, airflow
generator, and separating apparatus as claimed, based on the aforementioned
teachings of Haegermarck, since such features are conventional for
autonomous cleaning devices.” Final Act. 4—5.
Appellants argue that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious because “one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason,
and none is provided by the Examiner, to mount the airflow generator or
separating apparatus of Haegermarck, which is mounted on bottom plate 11
of Haegermarck, onto upper plate 11 of McDonald.” Appeal Br. 9. In
particular, Appellants assert that “[t]he Examiner has failed to articulate
reasoning with rational underpinnings that explains why it would have been
obvious to mount the airflow generator and separating apparatus of
Haegermarck onto upper plate 11 of McDonald.” Reply Br. 5. We agree
that a sustainable case of obviousness has not been established.
Even if Haegermarck teaches a body (bottom plate 11) including an
airflow generator and separating apparatus and a front part 13 that moves
relative to bottom plate 11 (Ans. 6), the claim requires the same body both
(i) include an airflow generator or separating apparatus and (ii) be movable
relative to a chassis having a traction unit. Appellants persuasively assert
that “the mounting of an airflow generator and a separating apparatus to
4
Appeal 2016-003532
Application 13/608,640
bottom plate 11 [in Haegermarck] does not teach that an airflow generator
and a separating apparatus move, in response to a collision, relative to a
chassis having a traction unit.” Reply Br. 6. The Examiner has not
sufficiently articulated a rational evidentiary underpinning to explain why,
given the teachings of McDonald and Haegermarck, an ordinary artisan
would have been prompted to modify McDonald’s device to include the
airflow generator and/or separator apparatus (or the electronic component)
specifically on McDonald’s movable body (upper plate 11), as opposed to its
chassis (lower plate 12). See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with
approval in KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis.
In making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial duty of supplying
the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention
is patentable, “resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions[,] or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in [the] factual basis.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Absent improper hindsight
reconstruction, we fail to see a sufficient reasoned explanation based on
some rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify the movable body (i.e., top plate 11) of McDonald’s
cleaning device to include Haegermarck’s airflow generator and/or
separation apparatus (independent claim 1) or an electronic component
(independent claim 17), and a reason for such modification is not otherwise
evident from the record.
5
Appeal 2016-003532
Application 13/608,640
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of McDonald and Haegermarck renders
obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17, and claims 2—16
and 18—26 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McDonald and Haegermarck.
Rejection II
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 relies on the erroneous
conclusion that McDonald and Haegermarck renders obvious the subject
matter of independent claim 1, from which claim 27 depends. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner does not explain how Yokoi cures this underlying deficiency.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McDonald, Haegermarck, and Yokoi.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6