Ex Parte Tritz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2013

11180866 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2013)

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.
11/180,866 07/12/2005 Donald R. Tritz 04,137-A 4567
7590 04/18/2013
Lesavich High-Tech Law Group, P.C.
Suite 325
39 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DONALD R. TRITZ
____________

Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donald R. Tritz (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-20. Appellant cancelled
claims 6-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “an apparatus for drying hoofs
of hoofed animals.” Spec. 2, para. [0002]. Claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 are the
independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the appealed subject matter.
1. A hoof drying apparatus, comprising in combination:
a raised base platform including a plurality of air
chamber dividers included therein for directing a drying air
flow, wherein the height of the raised base platform is
specifically sized to allow easy step access by a hoofed animal,
wherein the plurality of air chambers dividers are configurable
by a user for use for multiple types of sized and shaped hoofs of
hoofed animals and wherein the plurality of air chamber
dividers comprise a rigid rubberized material, wherein the rigid
rubberized material is capable of supporting weight of a heavy
hoofed animal without collapsing;
a hollow air connector connected through a portion of the
raised based platform, wherein a first end outside the raised
based platform is connected to a drying air source and a second
end inside the raised based platform directs drying air into the
plurality of air chambers;
a first air mat with a plurality of openings of a first size
placed on top of the plurality of air chamber dividers in the
raised based platform; and
a second air mat with a plurality of openings of a second
size placed on top of the first air mat, wherein the second size is
different from the first size, wherein selected ones of the
plurality of openings of the second size align with one or more
of the plurality of openings of the first size,
wherein the length and width of the first air mat and the
second air mat are specifically sized and shaped to
accommodate one or more hoofs from a hoofed animal,
wherein the second air mat comprises a compressible
material that is compressible by the hoofed animal when weight
of the hoofed animal is applied to the one or more hoofs
thereby providing a surface that is comfortable for hoofed
Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

3
animal as the one or more hoofs are dried and particularly when
one or more hoofs are sensitive or diseased,
wherein the drying air flow is directed into the plurality
of air chamber dividers, through the plurality of openings in the
first air mat and through the plurality of openings in the second
air mat to dry a bottom portion, one or more side portions and a
top portion of one or more hoofs that are placed upon the
second air mat in the raised base platform,
wherein directing the drying air flow through the
plurality of openings in the first air mat and through the
plurality of openings in the second air mat changes a speed and
a pressure of the drying air flow, thereby providing an
additional drying air current as drying air is forced through and
between the different sized openings, and
wherein the first air mat and the second air mat includes a
flexible rubberized material, wherein the flexible rubberized
material is easily compressible when weight is applied by a
hoofed animal, thereby allowing one or more hoofs of a hoofed
animal with sensitive or diseased hoofs to be dried with reduced
pain and wherein the hoof drying apparatus is portable.

Independent claim 17 is directed to hoof drying apparatus including,
inter alia, a raised base platform including a plurality of air chamber
dividers, a hollow air connector, and an air mat with a plurality of layers,
wherein a first layer includes a plurality of openings of a first size and a
second layer with a plurality of openings of a second size different from the
first size.
Independent claim 19 is directed to a hoof drying apparatus including,
inter alia, a base means for directing drying air flow including a plurality of
air chamber dividers, a drying air flow connector means for directing the
driving air flow connected through a portion of the base means, a first drying
means for directing the drying air flow with a plurality of openings of a first
size, and a second drying means for directing the drying air flow with a
Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

4
plurality of openings of a second size, wherein the second size is different
from the first size.
Independent claim 20 is directed to a hoof drying apparatus including,
inter alia, a base means for directing drying air flow including a plurality of
air chamber dividers, a drying air flow connector means for directing the
driving air flow connected through a portion of the base means, a drying
means with a first layer for directing the driving air flow with a plurality of
openings of a first size, and a second layer for directing the drying air flow
with a plurality of openings of a second size, wherein the second size is
different from the first size.

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are
before us for review:
I. claims 1-5 and 10-20 as unpatentable over Campo (US
4,258,248, issued Mar. 24, 1981) and Karlsson (US 4,211,185, issued Jul. 8,
1980);
II. claims 1-5 and 10-20 as unpatentable over Bloom (US
4,559,903, issued Dec. 24, 1985) and Karlsson; and
III. claims 1-5 and 10-20 as unpatentable over Lin (US 5,613,304,
issued Mar. 25, 1997) and Karlsson.1

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-20 as
unpatentable over Santos (US 6,393,717 B1, issued May 28, 2002) and
Karlsson. Ans. 3.

Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

5
OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Campo and Karlsson
With respect to independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20, the Examiner
finds that “Campo shows a hollow platform 14, hollow air connector 12, 1st
air mat with openings 30 and 2nd air mat with different sized openings 26,
configured multiple air chambers dividers 12, 14, 18, [and] 24.” Ans. 4.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the present case, the Examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, because the Examiner’s
findings with respect to how Campo discloses the recitations in independent
claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 lack support in the Campo reference. Stating the
Examiner’s findings another way, the Examiner finds that Campo’s
“chamber[]14” (col. 1, l. 37) constitutes the claimed raised base platform or
base means, that Campo’s “lowered partition 12” (col. 1, ll. 36-37)
constitutes the claimed hollow air connector, that Campo’s “canted pan [1]8
[having] upwardly punched dimple holes 30” (col. 1, ll. 41-42) constitutes
the claimed first air mat with a plurality of openings of a first size, and that
Campo’s lowered partition 12, chamber 14, canted pan 18, and solid portion
24 constitute the claimed air chamber dividers. As the claims recite that the
raised base platform or base means includes a plurality of air chamber
dividers, Campo does not support that its raised base platform or base means
(chamber 14) includes a plurality of air chamber dividers (lowered partition
12, chamber 14, canted pan 18, and solid portion 24), because none of the
Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

6
lowered partition 12, chamber 14, canted pan 18, or solid portion 24
constitute a part of the raised base platform or base means (chamber 14) so
as to be “included” in the raised base platform or base means.
Moreover, it is improper to rely on the same structure in the Campo
reference, i.e., chamber 14, as being responsive to two different elements
(i.e., raised base platform or base means and a plurality of air chamber
dividers which are a part of the raised base platform or base means) in
claims 1, 17, 19, and 20. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure
containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two
of the three claimed means); see also Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32
F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in infringement context, a single conveyor held to
not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20, and claims 2-5, 10-16, and 18
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campo
and Karlsson.

Rejection II – Obviousness based on Bloom and Karlsson
With respect to independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20, the Examiner
finds that “Bloom shows a hollow platform 22, 48, configured multiple air
chamber dividers 32-82, hollow air connector 12, 1st air mat with openings
80 and 2nd air mat with different sized openings 82.” Ans. 5.
Again, the Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness (see Oetiker at 1445; see also Piasecki at
1472), because the Examiner’s findings with respect to how Bloom discloses
Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

7
the recitations in independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 lack support in the
Bloom reference. Stating the Examiner’s findings another way, the
Examiner has found that Bloom’s “bottom 22” (col. 2, l. 65) and “L-shaped
sill 48” (col. 3, l. 37) constitute the claimed raised base platform or base
means, that Bloom’s “outer shell 12” (col. 2, l. 63) constitutes the claimed
hollow air connector, that Bloom’s “floor 32” (col. 3, l. 18) and “grille 82”
(col. 5, l. 16) constitute the claimed air chamber dividers, that Bloom’s
“floor 32 includ[ing] . . . apertures 80” (col. 4, ll. 63-64) constitutes the first
mat with openings, and that Bloom’s grille 82 having unnumbered openings
constitutes the second mat with different sized openings. As the claims
recite that the raised base platform or base means includes a plurality of air
chamber dividers, Bloom does not support that its raised base platform or
base means (bottom 22 and L-shaped sill 48) includes a plurality of air
chamber dividers (floor 32 and grille 82).
Moreover, it is improper to rely on the same structure in the Bloom
reference, i.e., floor 32, as being responsive to two different elements (i.e.,
the first mat and an air chamber divider of the raised base platform or base
means) in claims 1, 17, 19, and 20. See Robertson; see also Lantech. It is
also improper to rely on the same structure in the Bloom reference, i.e.,
grille 82, as being responsive to two different claim elements (i.e., the
second mat and an air chamber divider of the raised base platform or base
means) in claims 1, 17, 19, and 20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20, and claims 2-5, 10-16, and 18
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bloom
and Karlsson.
Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

8
Rejection III – Obviousness based on Lin and Karlsson
The Examiner finds that “Lin shows a hollow platform 20, configured
multiple air chamber dividers AO, A4, 4, 9, 10, 24, hollow air connector 11,
1st air mat with openings B2 and 2nd air mat with different sized openings
B1, B3.” Ans. 7.
Once again, the Examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (see Oetiker at 1445; see also
Piasecki at 1472), because the Examiner’s findings as to how Lin discloses
the recitations in independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 lack support in the
Lin reference. Stating the Examiner’s findings another way, the Examiner
finds that Lin’s “spring hole 20” (col. 2, l. 44) constitutes the claimed raised
base platform or base means, that Lin’s “housing tube of an electric heater
11” (col. 2, ll. 26-27) constitutes the claimed hollow air connector, that the
“spiral passageway AO” of Figure 1’s first conventional sole dryer (col. 1,
ll. 8-10), and Lin’s “air chamber[] 4” (col. 2, ll. 31-32), “vertical
circumferential wall 9” (col. 2, l. 23), “air tube 10” (col. 2, l. 25), and
“connecting flat rod[] . . . 24” (col. 2, l. 62) all constitute the claimed air
chamber dividers, that the “housing B” with “air holes B2” of Figure 2’s
second conventional sole dryer (col. 1, l. 20-23) constitute the first mat with
openings, and that the “net B1” and “wave-shaped water guide plate BO”
with “air outlets B3” of Figure 2’s second conventional sole dryer (col. 1, ll.
21-24) constitutes the second mat with different sized openings. As the
claims recite that the raised base platform or base means includes a plurality
of air chamber dividers, Lin does not support that its raised base platform
(spring hole 20) includes a plurality of air chamber dividers (the spiral
passageway AO of Figure 1’s first conventional sole dryer, and Lin’s air
Appeal 2011-001241
Application 11/180,866

9
chambers 4, vertical circumferential wall 9, air tube 10, and connecting flat
rod 24). The Examiner’s reliance on structure from a first conventional sole
dryer depicted in Lin’s Prior Art Figure 1, a second conventional sole dryer
depicted in Lin’s Prior Art Figure 2, and Lin’s dryer depicted in the
remaining figures is evidence that Lin by itself does not disclose the
structure claimed in independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 as suggested by
the Examiner. The Examiner does not rely on Karlsson to disclose such
structure, and the Examiner has not provided reasoning concerning why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Lin with the first and
second conventional sole dryers depicted in Lin’s Prior Art Figures 1 and 2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 20, and claims 2-5, 10-16, and 18
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lin and
Karlsson.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of :
claims 1-5 and 10-20 as unpatentable over Campo and Karlsson; claims 1-5
and 10-20 as unpatentable over Bloom and Karlsson; and claims 1-5 and 10-
20 as unpatentable over Lin and Karlsson.

REVERSED

msc