Ex Parte Saranditis

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2007

10840715 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NIKOLAOS SARANDITIS
____________

Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 27, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, 25, 26, 31 and 34-36. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

INTRODUCTION
Appellant invented a method and apparatus for collecting excess
water leaking from a stuffing box of an inboard engine boat propeller shaft
(Specification 3). The stuffing box provides a watertight seal to the
propeller shaft of the boat. Appellant’s method includes monitoring a rate of
water collected in a tank exclusively for water discharged from a stuffing
box and communicating a warning if the rate of water collection exceeds a
preset value (Claim 1). The rate of water collection is based upon the
number of times a pump is operated to discharge the water from the holding
tank within a predetermined period of time (claim 10). The apparatus
includes a containment vessel surrounding the stuffing box, a holding tank
for receiving the water contained in the containment vessel, a pump with a
float switch for removing the water from the holding tank, a counting circuit
for determining the number of times the pump is operated during a
predetermined period of time thereby monitoring the rate of water collection
and an alerting device for communicating a warning signal (claim 13).
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 26 are illustrative:
1. A method for monitoring water leaking from a stuffing box of an
inboard engine boat propeller shaft, comprising the steps of:

shielding an engine compartment from a discharge of water from said
stuffing box;

collecting said discharge of water in a holding tank exclusively
provided for said discharge of water from said stuffing box;

monitoring a rate of water collection in said holding tank; and

communicating a warning if said rate of water collection exceeds a
preset value.
2
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

10. The method according to claim 8, wherein said monitoring step
further comprises:

automatically operating a pump to remove said water from said
holding tank when it reaches a predetermined level; and

counting the number of times said pump is operated within a
predetermined period of time.

11. The method according to claim 10, further comprising the step of
communicating a warning if said number of times said pump is operated
within a predetermined period of times exceeds a predetermined number.

13. A water management system for a boat propeller shaft stuffing
box, comprising:

a containment vessel disposed around a stuffing box, said containment
vessel shielding an engine compartment of said boat from a discharge of
water from said stuffing box, and collecting said discharge of water;

a holding tank in fluid communication with said containment vessel
and exclusively receiving water collected by said containment vessel;

a pump connected to said holding tank and a float switch connected to
said pump for automatically turning said pump on and off, said pump
removing at least a portion of said water from said holding tank; when said
water reaches a predetermined level;

an electronic circuit for monitoring the rate of water collection in said
holding tank, said electronic circuit comprising a counting circuit for
determining the number of times said pump is operated during a
predetermined period of time; and

an alerting device for communicating a warning indication when said
pump is operated a certain number of times within a predetermined period of
time.

3
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

18. The water management system according to claim 17, wherein
said mounting structure comprises a shaft log.

26. A water management system for a propeller shaft stuffing box,
comprising:

a containment vessel, sized and shaped to fit around a propeller shaft
stuffing box, said containment vessel having first and second axially-aligned
shaft bores at opposing ends thereof;

a support structure supporting said containment vessel in axial
alignment with said propeller shaft;

a holding tank in fluid communication with said containment vessel
for accumulating water from said containment vessel;

a pump responsive to an automatic switch, said automatic switch
responsive to a water level in said holding tank for automatically operating
said pump;

a control unit, said control unit monitoring a rate of water
accumulation in said holding tank and generating a warning signal when said
rate of water accumulation exceeds a predetermined rate;

wherein said control unit monitors said rate of water accumulation in
said holding tank based on the number of times said pump is operated during
a predetermined period of time.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Price US 4,341,178 Jul. 27, 1982
Herzhauser US 5,030,150 Jul. 9, 1991

4
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, 25-26, 31 and 34-36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Herzhauser in view Price.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we refer to the Brief and the
Reply Brief, and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition
thereof.
Appellant separately argues claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 18, and 26.
Accordingly we address Appellant’s arguments regarding those claims in
our opinion below.

OPINION
CLAIM 1
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in
view of Price. The Examiner found that Herzhauser does not disclose
monitoring the rate of water collection in the holding tank (Answer 4). The
Examiner found that Price discloses monitoring the rate of water collection
in a bilge (Answer 5). The Examiner concluded it would have been prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “provide to the holding
tank, pump and switch of Herzhauser a monitor, timer and alarm similar to
those discussed in column 3, lines 17-36 of Price so that in Herzhauser the . .
. rate of water collection in said holding tank can be monitored . . . to
indicate to the boat owner when the packing [i.e., stuffing] box is leaking too
much” (Answer 5-6).
5
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

Appellant argues lack of motivation for the combination of Price’s
bilge water pump monitoring with Herzhauser’s stuffing box water
containment and removal method (Br. 7). Specifically, Appellant argues
Herzhauser discloses pumping out the water from the holding tank “in the
usual manner” which indicates that no efforts are made to monitor the rate of
water accumulation (Br. 7). Appellant contends that Herzhauser’s disclosure
to remove water from sump 46 in the “usual manner” actually teaches away
from “monitoring water collected exclusively from a packing box” (Br. 7).
Appellant further contends that Price merely teaches removing bilge
water which may accumulate from various sources (i.e., rain, ocean spray,
etc.), not necessarily from a stuffing box such that monitoring bilge water
accumulation will not necessarily indicate that the stuffing box requires
maintenance (Br. 7, 8). Based upon this contention, Appellant argues that
Price neither discloses nor suggests a method or apparatus for monitoring
water leakage from a stuffing box of an inboard engine propeller shaft (Br.
7).
Furthermore, Appellant contends that his invention permits the quick
and easy determination of whether a stuffing box is leaking which was not
possible prior to Appellant’s invention (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that Herzhauser discloses that water leaking
through the stuffing box into sump 46 is leaking into the bilge of the marine
craft (Answer 13). The Examiner further states that “Price suggests
monitoring leakage into a bilge whether it be through stuffing box leakage or
through some other type of leakage” (Answer 13-14). The Examiner finds
that Price monitors the water leakage to prevent “catastrophic results due to
continuous running of the bilge pump” (Answer 14). The Examiner further
6
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

finds that “[e]xcessive leakage into the facility [i.e, sump] 46 of Herzhauser
could cause the pump 48 to run to the extent that the battery is exhausted or
the leakage could be so excessive that the facility [i.e, sump] 46 overflows
into the bilge area” (Answer 14). Because Price provides a monitor of bilge
pump operation, and because the pump 48 of Herzhauser is effectively a
bilge pump, the Examiner concludes “suggestion is present for monitoring
the operation of pump 48 of Herzhauser with [an] apparatus similar to that of
Price” (Answer 14).
The Examiner further responds that “if Price teaches monitoring of
leakage into the bilge of a sea craft, then monitoring of all types of leakage
into the bilge of the sea craft is undertaken including leakage from a stuffing
box” (Answer 15).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that claim 1 is
unpatentable under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in view of Price.
Appellant’s argument that Herzhauser teaches away from the
combination is not persuasive. While Herzhauser teaches that the water
collected in sump 46 is removed in the “usual manner,” such disclosure does
not discourage the solution claimed (i.e., monitoring the sump). In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(explaining “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because
such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed”).
Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Price’s disclosure to monitor
the “rate of leakage” of water to avoid catastrophic results such as
exhausting the bilge pump battery or overwhelming the bilge pump (Price,
7
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

col. 1, ll. 27-34, 46-49), would have provided motivation to one of ordinary
skill in the art for combining Price’s bilge water level monitoring method
with Herzhauser’s method of containing and removing water bypassing a
stuffing box. As the Examiner indicated, Herzhauser’s stuffing box splash
guard funnels the water into sump 46 located in the bilge of the craft such
that Price’s reasons indicated above for using his bilge water monitoring
method and device would provide motivation for the combination of Price’s
bilge water monitoring method with Herzhauser’s method of containing and
removing water bypassing a stuffing box (Answer 14).
Appellant appears to be arguing a long-felt-need in the boat art when
he states “[b]efore, [Appellant’s invention] boat mechanics would have to
visually inspect the stuffing box assembly to inspect whether the packing
box has been improperly adjusted or if the packing material needed to be
replaced” but Appellant’s invention provides an easy determination of the
source of leakage without having to inspect the bilge area (Br. 8). We note
that Appellant has not provided any declaration or affidavit to support his
argument. However, objective evidence must be factually supported by
appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value. In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). Attorney arguments
cannot take the place of such evidence on the record. In re Schulze, 346
F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
From the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of argued
claim 1 and non-argued claims 2-5, and 8 under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in
view of Price.
8
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

CLAIMS 10, 11, 13 AND 26
Method claims 10 and 11 ultimately depend on claim 1. Claim 10
recites, in relevant part, that the “monitoring step” further includes “counting
the number times said pump is operated within a predetermined period of
time” (claim 10). Claim 11, depends on claim 10 and further recites
“communicating a warning if said number of times said pump is operated
within a predetermined period of times exceeds a predetermined number”
(claim 11).
Claim 13 and claim 26 are independent apparatus claims. Claim 13
recites, in relevant part, that the apparatus has “a holding tank . . .
exclusively receiving water collected by said containment vessel” and “an
electronic circuit for monitoring the rate of water collection in said holding
tank, said electronic circuit comprising a counting circuit for determining the
number of times said pump is operated during a predetermined period of
time, and an alerting device for communicating a warning indication when
said pump is operated a certain number of times within a predetermined
period of time.”
Claim 26 recites, in relevant part, similar features as claim 13, with
the exception that the “holding tank” need not be “exclusively” for
accumulating water from said containment vessel. Specifically, claim 26
recites, in relevant part, “a control unit, said control unit monitoring a rate of
water accumulation in said holding tank and generating a warning signal
when said rate of water accumulation exceeds a predetermined rate; wherein
said control unit monitors said rate of water accumulation in said holding
tank based on the number of times said pump is operated during a
predetermined period of time.”
9
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 13 and 26 under § 103(a) over
Herzhauser in view of Price. The Examiner found that Herzhauser does not
teach “counting the number of times the pump is operated within a
predetermined period of time” (claim 10 and 11), “said electronic circuit
comprising a counting circuit for determining the number of times said
pump is operated during a predetermined period of time” (claim 13) or “said
control unit monitors said rate of water accumulation in said holding tank
based on the number of times said pump is operated during a predetermined
period of time” (claim 26) (Answer 4, 5, 7, 10). The Examiner found that
Price discloses a control device for a bilge pump by “counting the number of
times the pump is operated within a predetermined period of time” (Answer
5, 7, 10). Based on Price’s disclosure, the Examiner concluded that it would
have been prima facie obvious to use Price’s control system and method that
determine the frequency of pump operation to assess the rate of water
leakage with Herzhauser’s device and method for controlling water leakage
into a boat via a stuffing box “to alert the boat owner when the packing [i.e.,
stuffing] box is leaking too much” (Answer 6, 7, 11).
Appellant makes similar arguments regarding claims 10, 11, 13 and
26 as were made with respect to claim 1. We are unpersuaded by those
arguments for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s additional argument
regarding claims 10, 11, 13 and 26 that Price does not disclose counting the
number of times a pump operates to determine the rate of leakage. Price
discloses that the “on-time of the bilge pump is accumulated over a
predetermined period of time and compared with a corresponding reference
parameter” (Price, col. 1, l. 68 to col. 2, l. 3). Moreover, Price provides an
10
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

example of bilge pump operation by using a timer to accumulate successive
operating intervals of the bilge pump (Price, col. 3, ll. 17-30). In the
example, Price states that “if the bilge motor operates during seven two-
minute intervals over a one hour period, the timer will be accumulated to
fourteen minutes” (Price, col. 3, ll. 26-28). From this disclosure, Price
suggests taking into account the number of times the pump is activated (i.e.,
“if the bilge motor operates during seven two-minute intervals” (emphasis
added)).
Based on Price’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Price’s bilge water monitoring system
and method that include an electronic circuit or control unit for counting the
number of times a pump is activated using a timer for determining the rate of
leakage with Herzhauser’s stuffing box water containment and removal
system and method to avoid the catastrophic results caused by excessive
water leakage disclosed by Price (Price, col. 1, ll. 27-34).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of argued
claims 10, 11, 13 and 26 and non-argued claims 12, 14-17, 25, 31, and 34-
36.

CLAIM 18
Claim 18 ultimately depends on claim 13 and further recites that the
“mounting structure” for attaching the containment vessel “comprises a shaft
log.”
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in
view of Price. The Examiner found that Herzhauser, the primary reference,
taught mounting a containment vessel to a “shaft log” (Answer 8). The
11
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

Examiner interpreted Herzhauser’s “attachment member 22” as being the
“shaft log” (Answer 8).
Appellant argues that Herzhauser’s attachment member 22 is not a
“shaft log.” (Br. 13). Rather, Appellant contends that as shown in
Appellant’s Figure 5, Herzhauser’s attachment member 22 is similar to
Appellant’s compression sleeve 128 (Br. 13).
The Examiner responds that Appellant has not set forth any structure
for the “shaft log” that would prohibit Herzhauser’s attachment member 22
from satisfying the “shaft log” claim feature (Answer 27-28).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that claim 18 is
unpatentable under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in view Price.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments noted above for two
reasons. First, Appellant has not provided any evidence that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “shaft log” is incorrect. As the Examiner stated, Appellant
did not specify any particular structure for the “shaft log” in claim 18 or his
Specification. The most Appellant states is that “[t]he shaft log 110 is
generally formed as a hollow cylindrical housing 122 with an outer flange
118” (Specification, ¶ [0022]). Attachment member 22 meets those
disclosed features as it is coaxial with propeller shaft 18 and has a outward
extending flange.
Second, in Appellant’s Figure 5 embodiment the containment vessel
300 is indirectly attached via concentric ring pieces (316a, 316b, 316c) and
flexible hose 124. Similarly, Herzhauser’s housing 14 is indirectly attached
to the element Appellant argues should be construed as corresponding to the
claimed “shaft log” via the interposed members comprising the seal
arrangement (i.e., attachment member 22, connector element 64, etc. to
12
Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715

where the propeller shaft 18 exits the hull of the boat). Under either
construction, Herzhauser discloses mounting the housing 14 to a “shaft log”
as claimed.
We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 over
Herzhauser in view of Price.

CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, 25,
26, 31, and 34-36 over Herzhauser in view of Price.
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).

AFFIRMED

cam

Sacco & Associates, PA
P.O. Box 30999
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420-0999
13