Ex Parte Yeazell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 2011

09811875 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2011)

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.
09/811,875 03/19/2001 Bruce Albert Yeazell 6805C 1033
27752 7590 10/31/2011
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRUCE ALBERT YEAZELL
____________________

Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce Albert Yeazell (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 11-25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to dry cleaning without the
use of a bag (Spec. 1:4-8).
Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
11. A bagless kit for dry cleaning fabrics comprising one or
more carrier sheets that releasably comprise an amount of a
liquid cleaning/refreshment composition such that when fabrics
are exposed to said liquid cleaning/refreshment composition
within a heating vessel, in the absence of a bag, the fabrics are
cleaned.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review:
1. Claims 11-19, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith (US 5,238,587, issued Aug. 24, 1993).
2. Claims 11-19, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Weller (US 5,876,462, issued Mar. 2, 1999).
3. Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of You (US 5,789,368, issued Aug.
4, 1998).
Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875

3
4. Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weller in view of You.
5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Smith or Weller.

ISSUES
The issues before us are: (1) whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that the teachings of Smith or Weller would have led a person
having ordinary skill in the art to the dry cleaning of fabrics “in the absence
of a bag,” as called for in independent claims 11, 13 and 15-18 (App. Br. 3,
5); and (2) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the teachings of Smith
or Weller describe the dry cleaning of fabrics, as called for in independent
claim 14 (App. Br. 3, 5).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 11-13, 15-19, 21, 23 and 24 over Smith; and claims 11-
13, 15-19, 23 and 24 over Weller
All of the independent claims except for independent claim 14, while
drafted in different formats, e.g., kit claim (cl. 11), method claim (cls. 13,
15, 17 and 18) and system claim (cl. 16); require the dry cleaning of fabrics
“in the absence of a bag.”
The Examiner found that both Smith and Weller describe “the claimed
invention except for the absence of a bag” (Final Rej. 2-3), and (2) it would
have been obvious to eliminate the bag and its function from both Smith’s
and Weller’s systems in order to save cost, since it has been held that
omission of an element and its function in a combination where the
Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875

4
remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only
routine skill in the art (id.).
Appellant contends “that the removal of the bag encompasses more
than simply removing an element” (App. Br. 3, 5) since “the elimination of
the bag surprisingly provides a minimization of wrinkling,” wherein “the
function of containing the cleaning/refreshment compositions is still
performed, at least in part, by the heating vessel” (id.).
Appellant’s Specification describes the function provided by a bag in
dry cleaning fabric articles in a conventional clothes dryer:
The bag served to contain the water vapor, which evaporates off
of the carrier sheets due to the heat in the clothes dryer, so that
the water vapor could remain in contact with the fabric
articles/garments being dry cleaned thereby delivering perfume
and other beneficial agents. It was believed that without a bag
the evaporated water vapor would be driven off by the forced
air flow in the clothes dryer, prematurely drying the fabric
articles before the c1eaning/refreshment function was complete.
(Spec. 1:29-36).
Appellant’s Specification describes in the absence of a bag, several
factors must be considered in dry cleaning fabric articles in a conventional
clothes dryer:
The amount or liquid cleaning/refreshment composition
utilized, the temperature of the dryer operation, the amount of
airflow through the drying device and the amount of time the
fabric articles being dry cleaned are agitated all play an
important role in the dry cleaning processes described herein.
For example, adding too much liquid cleaning/refreshment
composition to the drying device will overly moisten the fabric
articles, resulting in wrinkling. Likewise adding too small an
amount of liquid cleaning/refreshment composition to the
drying device will not sufficiently moisten the fabric articles or
soils to mobilize malodors or to remove pre-existing fabric
Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875

5
wrinkles. Further, operating the drying device at too high of a
temperature and/or at too high of an air flow rate will tend to
volatilize and drive off the liquid cleaning/refreshment
composition before the desired cleaning/refreshment benefits
are achieved.
(Spec. 4:21-30).
Both Smith and Weller describe the use of a bag for dry cleaning
fabrics in a conventional clothes dryer (Smith, col. 9, ll. 5-9; Weller, col. 2,
ll. 13-23).
Both Smith and Weller are silent as to whether their inventions would
work without a bag. The Examiner has not provided adequate evidence that
would support the findings that Smith’s system or Weller’s system was
capable of dry cleaning fabrics in a conventional clothes dryer without a bag.
Accordingly, we conclude that to modify Smith or Weller to arrive at
the claimed invention amounts to more than the omission of an element and
its function and, thus, would not have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art.
We reverse the rejection of independent claims 11, 13 and15-18, and
dependent claims 12, 19, 21, 23 and 24 over Smith.
We reverse the rejection of independent claims 11, 13 and15-18, and
dependent claims 12, 19, 23 and 24 over Weller.

Rejection of claim 14 over Smith or Weller
The Examiner found that (1) both Smith and Weller describe “a dry
cleaning system for dry cleaning fabrics comprising a heating vessel (dryer)
for containing the fabrics and a carrier sheet comprises liquid
cleaning/refreshment composition same as claimed” (Final Rej. 2-3), and (2)
neither Smith nor Weller describe the absence of a bag (id.).
Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875

6
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to eliminate
the bag and its function (id.).
Claim 14 calls for “[a] system for dry cleaning fabrics comprising
contacting fabrics in need of cleaning with a liquid cleaning/refreshment
composition such that the fabrics are cleaned, wherein the fabrics and liquid
cleaning/refreshment composition are contained within a mechanical heating
vessel.”
Thus, claim 14 does not require the fabrics to be cleaned “in the
absence of a bag.”
Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s findings as to the
teachings of Smith or Weller (App. Br. 3-5).
Thus, we find, in view of the Examiner’s findings, that the teachings
of both Smith and Weller describe the subject matter called for in
independent claim 14.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 14 over Smith or
Weller. See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089 (CCPA 1978) (On appeal the
court affirmed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on the same species
relied on by the Board for an affirmance of a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection (1)
stating that “lack of novelty is the epitome of obviousness” and (2) holding
that this did not constitute a new ground of rejection.)

Rejections of claims 20 and 22 over Smith and You; claims 20-22 over
Weller and You, and claim 25 over Smith or Weller
The Examiner has not relied on You for any teaching that would
remedy the deficiency in Smith or Weller as to independent claim 11 from
which claims 20-22, respectively, depend (Final Rej. 3-4).
Appeal 2009-014226
Application 09/811,875

7
The Examiner’s rationale regarding the subject matter of claim 25
does not remedy the deficiency in Smith or Weller as to independent claim
11, from which claim 25 depends (Final Rej. 4).
Thus, for the same reasons set forth supra regarding independent
claim 11, we reverse the rejection of claims 20-22 and 25.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has erred in concluding that the teachings of Smith or
Weller would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the dry
cleaning of fabrics “in the absence of a bag,” as called for in independent
claims 11, 13 and 15-18.
The Examiner has not erred in finding that the teachings of Smith or
Weller describe the dry cleaning of fabrics as called for in independent claim
14.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 14 is affirmed. The
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-13 and 15-25 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls