Kuohuang Yang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

13643843 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

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.
13/643,843 10/26/2012 Kuohuang Yang 3748/0486PUS1 9074
60601 7590 12/26/2019
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
KLOTZ, WILLIAM R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KUOHUANG YANG
____________________

Appeal 2018-002420
Application 13/643,843
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-002420
Application 13/643,843

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, rejecting claims
1, 3, 6, 7, and 9–14.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a portable urination device. Claim 1, the
only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized for emphasis:
1. A portable urination device, comprising:
a guiding body, which has a guiding portion, a first port,
and a second port, the first port and the second port are positioned
at two ends of the guiding portion, the guiding portion has two
side walls, wherein a bottom edge of the two side walls is a
closed structure;
two connection units, which are disposed on the guiding
body and are positioned between the first port and the second
port; and
an adhesive layer, which is disposed on at least one
portion of one of the connection units such that an user’s finger
can touch the adhesive layer for steadily operating said portable
urination device;
wherein a receiving portion is positioned at the first port
near the two connection units and an open structure is positioned

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action
dated February 10, 2017 (“Final Act.”) and Answer dated November 1, 2017
(“Ans.”), and (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated July 7, 2017 (“Appeal
Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kuohuang
Yang. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-002420
Application 13/643,843

3

distant from the bottom edge of the two side walls of the guiding
body.

REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Willis US 2,690,568 Oct. 5, 1954
Langford
Nett
US 2006/0218709 A1
US 2011/0042258 A1
Oct. 5, 2006
Feb. 24, 2011

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9–11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Langford.
2. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Langford and Nett.
3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Langford and Willis.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 3, 6, 9–11, 13, and 14
as Anticipated By Langford
The Examiner finds that Langford discloses all of the limitations in
claim 1. Final Act. 4–5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Langford
teaches “an adhesive layer, which is disposed on at least one portion of one
of the connection units such that an user’s finger can touch the adhesive
layer for steadily operating said portable urination device” because
Appeal 2018-002420
Application 13/643,843

4

paragraph 47 of Langford discloses that flaps 44, 46 may be attached to side
walls 12, 14 by any suitable adhesive and side walls 12, 14 may be attached
at edges 56, 58 to form back seam 18 by an adhesive. Id. at 5 (citing
Langford ¶ 47). The Examiner finds that an “adhesive layer” is “a layer of
an adhering substance.” Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that claim 1 does
not require that the user’s finger must be adhered to the adhesive layer. Id.;
Final Act. 2.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because
Langford does not teach an adhesive layer which is disposed so that a user’s
finger can touch the adhesive layer so as to steadily operate the urination
device. Appeal Br. 10. We agree.
The Specification states that portable urination device 10 includes an
adhesive layer 14 disposed on connection unit 12. Spec. ¶ 24. Figure 3 is
reproduced below:

Figure 3 illustrates urination device 10 and adhesive layer 14 disposed on
one side of connection unit 12. Id. Referring to Figure 3, the Specification
states that adhesive layer 14 has a “weak viscous” so that the user can touch
the adhesive layer 14 with a finger and steadily operate urination device 10.
Appeal 2018-002420
Application 13/643,843

5

Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 25–28. We agree with the Examiner that, in light of the
usage in the claims and the Specification, the recited adhesive layer is “a
layer of an adhering substance.” Ans. 6.
In contrast to the Specification, Langford discloses that flaps 44, 46
may be attached to side walls 12, 14 by any suitable adhesive and side walls
12, 14 may be attached at edges 56, 58 to form back seam 18 by an adhesive.
Ans. 6 (citing Langford ¶ 47). Langford does not teach that a layer of an
adhering substance is disposed on the flaps so that it may be touched by a
user’s finger or that adhesion between the adhering substance and the finger
is used to operate the urination device as recited in claim 1.
For these reasons, Langford does not teach all of the limitations
recited in claim 1, and, thus, the rejection of claim 1 cannot be sustained.
Similarly, the rejection of claims 3, 6, 9–11, 13, and 14, which depend from
claim 1, cannot be sustained.

Rejection 2: Claim 7
as Unpatentable Over Langford and Nett
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, which depends from claim 1,
does not remedy the deficiencies of Langford as discussed above in
connection with claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claim 7 is reversed.

Rejection 3: Claim 12
as Unpatentable Over Langford and Willis
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, which depends from claim 1,
does not remedy the deficiencies of Langford as discussed above in
connection with claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claim 12 is reversed.

Appeal 2018-002420
Application 13/643,843

6

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6, 9–
11, 13, 14
102 Langford 1, 3, 6, 9–
11, 13, 14
7 103 Langford, Nett 7
12 103 Langford, Willis 12
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 6, 7,
9–14

For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 7,
and 9–14 are REVERSED.

REVERSED