Ex Parte TaylorDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 18, 201814813607 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/813,607 07/30/2015 Colin Frank Taylor SWAT-l-1002 5844 25315 7590 01/22/2018 LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHANH TUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2018 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): patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte COLIN FRANK TAYLOR Appeal 2017-006127 Application 14/813,607 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—7, 15—18, and 20. We have jurisdictionunder 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 24, 2015; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated April 13, 2016; Advisory Action (“Advisory Act.”) dated July 7, 2016; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) dated October 12, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated December 29, 2016, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated February 28, 2017. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Silk Water Solutions Inc., which also is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-006127 Application 14/813,607 BACKGROUND The invention relates to water conditioning compositions. Spec. 11. This disclosed compositions may be used for chemical maintenance of water in pools, spas, and hot tubs. Id. 12. Claims 1 and 15—the only independent claims on appeal—read as follows: 1. A water conditioning composition for a pool, spa, or hot tub, the water conditioning composition comprising: water; at least one gluconate compound; at least one carbonate compound; a non-ionic preservative; a phosphate buffer; optionally, a dye; and optionally, a scent; wherein the composition does not contain calcium and wherein the water conditioning composition is configured and arranged for treating water in the pool, spa, or hot tub within which, after treatment, a user can bathe in the treated water. 15. A water conditioning composition for a pool, spa, or hot tub, comprising: 1 part gluconate compound; 4 to 10 parts carbonate compound; 0.5 to 2 parts non-ionic preservative; and 0.5 to 3 parts phosphate buffer; wherein the water conditioning composition is configured and arranged for treating water in the pool, spa, or hot tub within which, after treatment, a user can bathe in the treated water. App. Br. 13, 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight the disputed recitation). 2 Appeal 2017-006127 Application 14/813,607 REJECTIONS3 I. Claims 1—4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Palladini.4 II. Claims 5—7, 15—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Palladini, Karg,5 and Liu.6 OPINION Rejection I With regard to Rejection I, Appellant argues the claims as a group. App. Br. 3—7. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal as to Rejection I based on the representative claim. The Examiner finds that Palladini discloses a cleaning formulation that includes a gluconate, a carbonate, a phosphate buffer, and a preservative. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Palladini teaches use of methylisothiazolinone or methylchloroisothiazolinone as a preservative, each of which the Examiner finds is non-ionic. Id. Appellant does not dispute the foregoing findings. However, Appellant argues that Palladini fails to teach that the disclosed compositions would be suitable for treating water in a pool, spa, or hot tub. App. Br. 5. Particularly, Appellant argues that Palladini’s formulation includes 3 Final Act. 2. The Examiner’s findings and reasoning in support of the Rejections are presented at pages 2—5 of the earlier Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) dated September 10, 2015. 4 WO 2007/141635 A2, published December 13, 2007 (“Palladini”). 5 U.S. 3,634,268, issued January 11, 1972 (“Karg”). 6 CN 103320239, published September 25, 2013 (“Liu”), as translated. 3 Appeal 2017-006127 Application 14/813,607 detergents and surfactants which, according to Appellant, “would leave the bather’s skin dry and uncomfortable.” Id. On that basis, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by failing to establish that the formulation suggested by Palladini would meet the recitation that “a user can bathe in the treated water.” Id. at 3^4. Appellant does not point to persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to support the contention that detergents or surfactants generally, or Palladini’s detergents or surfactants in particular, would render the composition unsuitable for use in a pool, spa, or hot tub. Conversely, the Examiner points to Palladini’s characterization of the disclosed compositions as exhibiting low impact on the environment and human health, and being suitable for direct contact with skin. Ans. 4. See Palladini 4:26—27 (“The present invention is aimed to detergents (sic) formulations with low impact on environment and human health, together with good cleaning efficacy.”); id. 1:4—5 (“The present invention relates to formulations of detergents for . . . washing-up . . . .”); id. at 3:29 to 4:1 (characterizing washing-up detergents as involving “direct contact with the skin”). The Examiner also points to de Rijk (US 2008/0035580 Al, published February 14, 2008) as evidence of use of detergents and surfactants in pools and hot tubs. Advisory Act. 2. Appellant’s arguments that de Rijk does not disclose the same detergents as Palladini, App. Br. 7, is not persuasive. The Examiner points to de Rijk as evidence sufficient to refute Appellant’s contention that detergents generally would be unsuitable for use in bathing water. As noted, Appellant presents no contrary evidence regarding the particular detergents disclosed in Palladini. Appellant’s further argument, Reply Br. 7, that 4 Appeal 2017-006127 Application 14/813,607 Palladini’s reference to washing-up would involve only a limited exposure to skin for a short period of time is neither supported by evidence nor sufficient to demonstrate unsuitability of Palladini’s formulation for the recited use. Moreover, Appellant has not explained why even limited exposure would be outside the scope of the claims. On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner’s finding that the composition suggested by Palladini would have been suitable for use in pools, spas, or hot tubs is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant fails to identify reversible error in Rejection I. Accordingly, that Rejection is sustained. Rejection II Appellant presents the same arguments against Rejection II as are presented in connection with Rejection I. See App. Br. 9—15; Reply Br. 9— 15. Having found those arguments unpersuasive of reversible error, Rejection II also is sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 15—18, and 20 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation