Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12610116 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/610,116 10/30/2009
83182 7590 09/30/2016
J. ANDREW MCKINNEY & ASSOC., LLC
PO Box 1290
Millersville, MD 21108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chunling Zhao
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.
2640.190NP 9766
EXAMINER
REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 CHUNLING ZHAO and SHRIDHAR GOP ALAN
Appeal2014-008957
Application 12/610,116
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chunling Zhao and Shridhar Gopalan (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision: (1) to reject under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) claims 10-12 and 16 as anticipated by Berning (US 2004/0164189
Al; pub. Aug. 26, 2004); and (2) to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims
17-20 as unpatentable over Berning and Schapper (US 7,152,814 Bl; iss.
Dec. 26, 2006). Claims 1-9 and 13-15 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-008957
Application 12/ 610, 116
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "irrigation nozzles adapted for
use with fluidic circuits." Spec. 2. 1
Claim 10, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
subject matter and recites:
10. An inexpensive, durable and efficient irrigation nozzle
adapted to generate a specialized rectangular spray, comprising:
a 3-jet fluidic circuit configured to generate first, second
and third jets directly impinging upon a spray nexus point to
generate a substantially planar resultant spray pattern, said 3-jet
fluidic circuit having a selected floor geometry and selected taper
features configured to create a first spray pattern comprising a
first part of a substantially rectangular irrigation target area;
said irrigation nozzle being configured to generate a
second spray pattern. which, together with said first spray
pattern, comprise a substantially rectangular spray covering said
substantially rectangular irrigation target area.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Regarding independent claim 10, the Examiner finds that Berning
anticipates the invention recited therein, with particular reliance on Figure
18 for the claimed 3-jet fluidic circuit and Figures 10 and 11 and paragraphs
76, 78, 80 and 92 for the first and second spray patterns configured to cover
the recited substantially rectangular irrigation target area. See Final Act. 2-
3; Ans. 2-3, 7.
1 Appellants' Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering
and, accordingly, reference will only be made to the page number.
2
Appeal2014-008957
Application 12/ 610, 116
Claim 10 includes a limitation reciting a "3-jet fluidic circuit having a
selected floor geometry and selected taper features configured to create a
first spray pattern," the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in
Berning (including any figures or paragraphs 76, 78, 80, and 92), which
indicates that the fluidic circuit shown in Fig. 18 of Berning has a selected
floor geometry and selected taper features configured to create a first spray
as required by claim 10.
Additionally, claim 10 recites that the first spray pattern comprises "a
first part of a substantially rectangular irrigation target area." The Examiner
relies on Figures 10 and 11 of Berning as illustrating this limitation. Final
Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3, 7. As correctly noted by Appellants, however, Figures
10 and 11 of Berning illustrate that a plurality of sprays can be used to
generate oscillating sprays that will cover the interior of a 3-D volume. Br.
10. In this regard, inspection of Figures 10 and 11 reveals that the
oscillating sprays are serpentine or swirling in configuration and that the 3-D
volume containing the sprays is fan or wedge shaped. Figures 10 and 11 of
Berning thus do not depict "a first spray pattern comprising a first part of a
substantially rectangular target area."
Moreover, the Examiner mixes the multiple fluidic circuit irrigation
nozzle of Berning which is suited for producing the 3-D spray pattern of
Figure 11 with the single fluidic circuit of Figure 18 and determines that the
resultant device will create a first spray pattern comprising a first part of a
substantially rectangular target area. Ans. 7. However, the Examiner has
not provided any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning with respect to
Berning, including paragraphs 76, 78, 80, and 92, which indicates that the
Examiner's stated outcome would be the result of combining the
3
Appeal2014-008957
Application 12/ 610, 116
embodiment shown in Figures 10 and 11 with the different embodiment
shown in Figure 18. An anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an
ambiguity. Rather, disclosures in a reference relied on to prove anticipation
must be so clear and explicit that those skilled in the art will have no
difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899
(CCP A 1962).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10 and its respective dependent
claims 11, 12, and 16 as anticipated by Berning.
Obviousness
The Examiner's application of Schapper as a separate additional
reference relied on for teaching a pop-up nozzle assembly (Ans. 7-8) does
not remedy the deficiencies of Berning as described above. Therefore, for
the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 17-20 as unpatentable over Berning and Schapper.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-12
and 16-20.
REVERSED
4