Ex Parte Wu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2013

11164346 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
11/164,346 11/18/2005 Scott Wu CFP-3141 (20051309.ORI) 5345
69638 7590 01/29/2013
KAMRATH IP Lawfirm, P.A.
4825 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
SUITE 245
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DINH Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2013 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 SCOTT WU
____________________

Appeal 2010-006788
Application 11/164,346
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006788
Application 11/164,346

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-8, 21, and 22. Claim 11 is objected to and claims
12-18, 23, and 24 depend from claim 111. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim:
1. A portable direct-circuit sprayer comprising:
a body comprising a water chamber containing water,
with the water chamber having a first portion and a second
portion separated from the first portion, with the body further
including a component chamber with first and second open
sides, with the first open side opposite the second open side,
with the body further including an integrated floor integrated to
and extending between the first and second portions of the
water chamber, with the water chamber having an intermediate
portion connecting the first and second portions and spaced
from and opposite the integrated floor, with the body including
the first, second, and intermediate portions of the water
chamber and the integrated floor being a single inseparable
element, with the integrated floor extending between the first
and second open sides, with the component chamber positioned
between the first and second portions, with first and second
portions and the integrated floor defining the first and second
open sides, and with the component chamber accessible through
the first and second open sides;
a pump installed in the component chamber and carried
on the integrated floor, with the pump provided to pressurize
the water from the water chamber;

1 Claims 12-18, 23, and 24 were originally rejected and appealed. However,
the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 12-18, 23, and 24. See
Ans. 6.
Appeal 2010-006788
Application 11/164,346

3
a panel removably secured to the body and shutting the
first open side of the component chamber; and
a cover removably secured to the body and shutting the
second open side of the component chamber.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shapanus (US 2005/0006400 A1; pub. Jan. 13,
2005), Frank (US 6,243,913 B1; iss. Jun. 12, 2001), and Lin (US 4,925,105;
iss. May 15, 1990); and
2. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shapanus, Frank, Lin, and Louis (US 6,158,669; iss. Dec.
12, 2000).

OPINION
The Examiner finds that “Shapanus et al. discloses all the limitations
of the claims except for an intermediate portion, an integrated floor, [and]
first and second open sides of the component chamber.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner cites Frank as teaching “an integrated floor 104/106/108” and “an
intermediate portion 50” and Lin as teaching “a component chamber 30 with
first and second open sides.” Id. The Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious . . . to have provided . . . Shapanus
et al. with an intermediate portion and an integrated floor . . . to
strengthen[] the sprayer body, and to [have] provided . . .
Shapanus et al. with first and second open sides of the
component chamber.
Ans. 3-4. The Examiner explains that “[d]oing so would provide an easy
access for servicing the spraying components.” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2010-006788
Application 11/164,346

4
Appellant contends that “cover 104/106/108 of Frank . . . is not
integrated to and does not extend between first and second portions of the
water chamber.” App. Br. 4. We agree. In Frank, the housing cover 104,
pump chamber cover 106, and suction chamber cover 108 are coupled to the
housing 52 (and ultimately the “first portion” 36, the “second portion” 40,
and the “intermediate portion” 50) by screws 98, 100, making the covers
104, 106, 108 removable. Claim 1 requires “the first, second, and
intermediate portions of the water chamber and the integrated floor being a
single inseparable element.” Emphasis added. Because the covers 104,
106, 108 in Frank are removable from the housing 52 via the screwed
attachment, they do not form a single inseparable element with the “first
portion” 36, the “second portion” 40, and the “intermediate portion” 50 as
required by claim 1.
The Examiner further reasons that “to make the floor 104/106/108
integral is obvious to one skilled in the art and would be merely a matter of
obvious design choice.” Ans. 4. The Examiner does not specify whether it
would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to make the floor
integral in Shapanus or Frank (and then incorporate that integral floor into
Shapanus). However, by referencing “the floor 104/106/108,” it appears that
the Examiner is indicating that it would have been obvious to have made the
floor integral in Frank and then use this “integral” floor to modify Shapanus.
As Appellant points out, however, it does not make sense to make Frank’s
floor integral because the pump would no longer be accessible. See App. Br.
4. If the Examiner’s proposal is to modify Frank to include an integral floor
piece (i.e., make 104/106/108 a single piece) and subsequently modify
Shapanus with the modified Frank to also include an integral floor, one is
Appeal 2010-006788
Application 11/164,346

5
left wondering what purpose the Frank reference serves (Shapanus already
has detachable floor 296), and what rational underpinnings serve such a
modification. Without further explanation, the Examiner’s reason, “design
choice,” fails to adequately explain the underpinnings for such a proposal.
In the Response to Arguments, the Examiner alternatively finds that
Shapanus teaches an integrated floor, contrary to the position initially taken
in the rejection. Ans. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Shapanus
teaches “a water chamber 28 . . . having a first portion and a second portion
. . . and an integrated floor 292 (see figure 17) between and connecting the
first and second portions of the water chamber.” Id. However, the
“integrated floor” 292 in Shapanus does not form a single inseparable
element with the first and second portions of the “water chamber” 28. In
Shapanus, “[t]he pump cover 284 [including base 292] can be connected to
the bracket 196 (and therefore, the tank 28) by fastening the upstanding wall
288 to the cover connecting flange 276 using fasteners and by positioning
each of the projections 296 above a respective one of the cover support
flanges 280.” Para. [0084]. These incorrect findings do not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection noted above.
The Examiner further reasons that “the use of a one piece construction
instead of the structure disclosed in the Shapanus or the Frank et al.
references would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” Ans.
8. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that it would have
been an obvious design choice to make the floor integral in Frank and
subsequently modify Shapanus with the modified Frank. With respect to
Shapanus, the Examiner merely asserts that it is a matter of obvious
engineering choice to include the integral floor but fails to articulate any
Appeal 2010-006788
Application 11/164,346

6
rational underpinnings in support of this allegation. Thus, we are also not
persuaded that making the floor integral in Shapanus would have been an
obvious design choice.
The stated basis for the rejection of claims 6-8 fails to cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 1-8, 21, and 22.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 21, and
22.

REVERSED

hh