Ex Parte Wentworth et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201613411985 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/411,985 03/05/2012 62124 7590 03/01/2016 QUINN LAW GROUP, PLLC 39555 ORCHARD HILL PLACE SUITE# 520 NOVI, MI 48375 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert J. Wentworth 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. MCWW0109PUS 3863 EXAMINER LAU, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): mjb@quinnlawgroup.com amb@quinnlawgroup.com klb@quinnlawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT J. WENTWORTH and LIONEL BELANGER Appeal2015-006173 Application 13/411,985 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2015---006173 Application 13/411,985 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to automatic car wash systems. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A drying station for a vehicle wash facility, comprising: at least one rotatable drying wheel positioned adjacent a vehicle treatment area; wherein said at least one rotatable drying wheel includes a rotatable shaft and a drying material disposed on said rotatable shaft and which can engage an exterior of said vehicle to remove water accumulated thereon; a beater device disposed adjacent said rotatable shaft; and said at least one rotatable drying wheel and said beater device being engageable such that as said at least one rotatable drying wheel spins, said beater device radially penetrates said drying material to help minimize a level of saturation of said drying material. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Yasutake Belanger Pleener Runnalls Morokutti us 5,432,974 us 5,613,260 us 5,881,424 GB 2 364 034 A US 6,463,616 Bl The following rejections are before us for review: July 18, 1995 Mar. 25, 1997 Mar. 16, 1999 Jan. 16,2002 Oct. 15, 2002 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belanger, Pleener, and Morokutti. 2. Claims 3, 11, 13, 16-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belanger, Pleener, Morokutti, and Runnalls. - 2 - Appeal2015---006173 Application 13/411,985 3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belanger, Pleener, Morokutti, and Yasutake. Claim 1 OPINION Unpatentability of Claims I, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, I 2, and 2 I over Belanger, Pleener, and Morokutti The Examiner finds that the combination of Belanger, Pleener and Morokutti disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 and that it would have been obvious to combine such references to achieve the claimed invention. Final Action 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds that element 14 of Morokutti satisfies the limitation in claim 1 directed to a beater device. Id. Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing, among other things, that Morokutti does not disclose a beater device that radially penetrates the drying material as claimed. Appeal Br. 13. We agree. Appellants' Specification teaches that, to reduce water saturation in the drying material, water is removed from the drying material. Spec. i-f 31. One method of removing water entails the use of beater device 40. Id. at i-f 33. When the beater device engages the rotatable drying wheel, the drying material contacts the beater to "slap" the water off. Id. at i-fi-134, 35. Figures 7 A and 7B show the radial penetration of beater device 40 into top wheel 22, which we understand is intended to illustrate this "slapping" procedure to remove water from the drying material. See Fig. 7 A, 7B. Morokutti discloses a floor cleaning machine. Morokutti, col. 1, 11. 29-31. Morokutti' s floor cleaning machine is comprised of two rotating, cylindrical brushes 3 and 4, disposed on shafts 31 and 41. Id. at col. 8, 11. 1-8. A drum 5 in the form of a hollow cylinder is arranged between the - 3 - Appeal2015---006173 Application 13/411,985 two cylindrical bn.1shes 3 and 4. Id. at col. 8, 11. 13-15. Bn.1shes 3 and 4 propel dirt and water towards drum 5, thereby forming film 52 on drum 5. Id. at col. 8, 11. 49-58. Stripping device 14 contacts drum 5 and lifts film 52 from the drum surface and transfers the film to waste water container 15. Id. at col. 8, 11. 59---63. Morokutti's stripping device 14 operates by skimming a film from the surface of a cylinder. The operation of Morokutti' s stripping device is distinguishable from Appellants' beater device which operates by radially penetrating the drying material on rotating drying wheels in such a way as to "slap" the water off. Spec. i-fi-134, 35. The Examiner's factual findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and, accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 21 Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 21 depend from claim 1. Claims App. The rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that we have identified above with respect to claim 1. For the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 21. Unpatentability of Claims 3, 11, 13, 16-20, and 22 over Belanger, Pleener, Morokutti, and Runnalls As with claim 1, claims 3, 11, 13, 16-20, and 22, each have a limitation directed to a beater device that radially penetrates a drying material. Claims App. The Examiner relies on Runnalls as disclosing a beater device that is moveable between a first location and a second location as claimed. Final Action 5. - 4 - Appeal2015---006173 Application 13/411,985 Runnalls discloses a spray suppressor device to remove water from a vehicle wheel tire. Runnalls, Abstract. Runnalls fails to cure the deficiency we have noted above with respect to the beater device limitation in connection with the rejection of claim 1. Thus, the rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that we have identified above with respect to claim 1. For the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 11, 13, 16-20, and 22. Unpatentability of Claim 6 over Belanger, Pleener, Morokutti, and Yasutake As with claim 1, claim 6 has a limitation directed to a beater device that radially penetrates a drying material. Claims App. The Examiner relies on Yasutake as disclosing a supply of wax that is applied to a vehicle as claimed. Final Action 8. Yasutake discloses a car washing machine with a washing section, a waxing section, and drying section. Yasutake, Abstract. Yasutake fails to cure the deficiency we have noted above with respect to the beater device limitation in connection with the rejection of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 and 16-22 is REVERSED. REVERSED - 5 - Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation