Ex parte Tramontina

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 18, 2000

08951077 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 18, 2000)

All references herein to appellant’s brief are to the1
re-submitted brief filed on Feb. 23, 2000 (Paper No. 31).
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PAUL TRAMONTINA
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, STAAB, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to
21, all the claims in the application.
The claims on appeal are drawn to a vandal-resistant
dispenser for washroom products, such as paper towels, and are
reproduced in the appendix of appellant’s brief.1
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
2
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
3
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Stronge et al. (Stronge) 3,865,323 Feb.
11, 1975
Richardson et al. 4,408,811 Oct. 11,
1983
(Richardson)
Voss et al. (Voss) 4,611,768 Sep. 16,
1986
De Luca et al. (De Luca) Des. 312,369 Nov. 27,
1990
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected on the
following grounds:
(1) Claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 19 and 20, anticipated by De Luca,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Claims 1 to 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15 to 17 and 20, unpatentable
over Voss in view of De Luca, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 4, 5, 8, 12 to 14, 18, 19 and 21, unpatentable over
Voss in view of De Luca and Richardson, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
(4) Claim 9, unpatentable over Voss in view of De Luca and
Stronge, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
Claim 1 reads (emphasis added):
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
The specification should be amended to provide2
antecedent basis, as required by 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1).
4
An improved wall-mounted, vandal resistant
paper towel dispenser for public washrooms,
comprising:
means for storing and dispensing paper
towels; and
an outer housing for encasing said storing
and dispensing means, said outer housing
comprising a rear mounting surface that is
adapted to be secured to a wall, and a shell-
like forward surface having a top and sides and
which is connected to said rear mounting
surface, for protecting said storing and
dispensing means from individuals who might have
destructive intent, said shell-like forward
surface being softly rounded to define a
smoothly curving cross-sectional profile in any
plane perpendicular to the rear mounting surface
to an extent that is [sic: it is] practically
impossible to obtain a handhold on the top or
sides of said outer housing, whereby a vandal
will be prevented from grabbing the dispenser
and pulling it off the wall.
In considering this claim, we note that the expression "in any
plane perpendicular to the rear mounting surface" does not
appear in the specification. The word "any" in this2
expression could, in the abstract, be interpreted to mean "at
least one" or "every." However, reading the claim in light of
the apparatus disclosed in the application, and in light of
the intended function of the claimed structure as recited in
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
We note that on page 4, line 22, of appellant’s3
specification "particularly" should be --practically--.
5
the claim, i.e., "to an extent that [it] is practically [ ]3
impossible to obtain a handhold on the top or sides of said
outer housing," we interpret the word "any" as "every." Thus,
in order to anticipate claim 1, the towel dispenser disclosed
by De Luca must include an outer housing which has a forward
surface which is "softly rounded to define a smoothly curving
cross-sectional profile in any [i.e., every] plane
perpendicular to the rear mounting surface."
It is evident to us that De Luca does not meet this
limitation. The examiner contends that the "softly rounded"
and "smoothly curving cross-sectional profile" limitations
have a broader connotation than "having a continuously arcuate
shape" (answer, page 5), but no matter how broadly they may be
interpreted, they are not met by De Luca. In Figs. 5 and 6,
De Luca shows top and bottom plan views of the dispenser, and
it is evident from these views that the cross-sectional
profile of the outer housing taken on a horizontal plane
through the dispenser would exhibit no curvature at all, but
merely would be flat at the sides and front of the dispenser,
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
6
connected by flat chamfer portions. Absent any curved
surfaces whatsoever in this cross-sectional profile, the
"softly rounded" and "smoothly curving" limitations of claim 1
are clearly not present in the cross-sectional profile in any
(every) plane perpendicular to the rear mounting surface of
the dispenser outer housing, as required by claim 1, and
therefore claim 1 is not anticipated by De Luca.
Claim 15, the other independent claim included in this
rejection, differs from claim 1 only in that it recites
dispensing a "washroom product" rather than "paper towels,"
and thus is likewise not anticipated by De Luca.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained as to
claims 1 and 15, nor, it follows, as to dependent claims 5,
10, 19 and 20.
Rejection (2)
The examiner takes the position that it would have been
obvious in view of De Luca to modify the Voss dispenser "so as
to employ a softly rounded and smoothly curving dispensing
frame [sic: outer housing?]" (answer, page 4). We will not
sustain this rejection, since even if Voss and De Luca were
combined as the examiner proposes, the resulting structure
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
7
would not have had an outer housing which was (as recited in
independent claims 1 and 15) "softly rounded to define a
smoothly curving cross-sectional profile in any [every] plane
perpendicular to the rear mounting surface," such a housing
not being disclosed by Voss, and not being taught by De Luca
for the reasons discussed above in relation to rejection (1).
Rejection (3)
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 21
will not be sustained, since these claims are all ultimately
dependent on claims 1 or 15, and Richardson, the additionally
applied reference, does not supply the above-noted deficiency
in the combination of Voss and De Luca.
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
8
Claim 14 does not contain any limitations concerning the
profile of the outer housing. It reads:
An improved vandal-resistant paper towel
dispenser for public washrooms, comprising:
means for storing and dispensing paper
towels;
an outer housing for encasing said storing
and dispensing means;
an access door defined in said outer
housing for loading paper towels into the
dispenser;
a concealed locking and release mechanism
for opening said access door; and
a non-operative decoy locking mechanism
that is at least as visible than [sic: as] said
concealed locking and release mechanism, whereby
vandals intent on opening the dispenser will be
confused.
Richardson discloses a paper towel handling unit having a
housing 21 with an upper towel dispensing cavity 29 and a
lower cavity receiving a waste bin 23. Both cavities are
covered by a door 1 which is locked to the housing by upper
and lower locking members 7, 9. The examiner states at page 7
of the answer:
Voss et al. . . . teaches of [sic] a paper towel
dispenser having only one lock. Richardson
employs two locking devices (7 & 9), one of
which can be considered a "decoy locking
mechanism" so far as defined. As depicted in
figure 4, when door (1) is closed, lock 7 [the
primary lock] engages member (32) of the housing
frame thereby locking the door to the housing
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
Webster’s Third New Int’l. Dictionary (1971).4
9
frame. Supplemental lock (9) if left in an
"unlocked" state could arguably be viewed as a
"decoy lock" since the securement of the door to
the frame does not solely rest on this element.
The examiner’s conclusion, not specifically stated, apparently
is that it would have been obvious to provide the dispenser of
Voss with two locks as disclosed by Richardson.
This rejection will not be sustained. In the first
place, we do not agree with the examiner that, giving the term
"decoy" its ordinary and accustomed meaning (In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) of
"something intended to allure or entice, esp. into a trap,"4
the second lock 9 of Richardson may reasonably be termed a
"decoy locking mechanism" as called for by claim 14.
Secondly, even if Richardson’s lock 9 were considered a
"decoy", the combination of Voss, De Luca and Richardson would
not meet all the limitations of claim 14, because claim 14
recites a "non-operative decoy locking mechanism" (emphasis
added). Neither of Richardson’s locks 7, 9 is non-operative,
and we do not find (nor has the examiner identified) anything
in Richardson (or De Luca) which would have suggested to one
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
10
of ordinary skill the addition of a non-operative locking
mechanism to the dispenser of Voss.
Rejection (4)
We will not sustain this rejection because the
limitations in parent claim 1 which are not met by the
combination of Voss and De Luca (see rejection (2) discussion,
supra) are still absent when Stronge is added to the
combination.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
11
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SLD
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
12
KARL V. SIDOR
KIMERLY CLARK WORLDWIDE
INCORPORATED
401 NORTH LAKE STREET
NEENAH, WI 54956
Shereece
Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
APJ CALVERT
APJ BAHR
APJ STAAB
REVERSED
Prepared: December 20, 2001