Masahiro Muranaka

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

14656238 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
14/656,238 03/12/2015 Masahiro Muranaka 44516-19 DIV 5085
31554 7590 08/02/2019
Carter, DeLuca & Farrell LLP
576 Broad Hollow Road
MELVILLE, NY 11747
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, SON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
bpuchaczewska@carterdeluca.com
docket@carterdeluca.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MASAHIRO MURANAKA
____________________

Appeal 2018-0091611
Application 14/656,2382
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5. We have jurisdiction under
§ 6(b). We reverse.

1 We reference herein the Final Office Action mailed August 29, 2017
(“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief filed February 26, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 21, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 Appellant identifies Masahiro Muranaka as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-009161
Application 14/656,238

2
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 2 are the independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br.,
Claims App. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, and we reproduce it below, emphasizing the limitation at issue.
1. A hydroculture pot for a hydroculture plant comprising:
a cylindrical pot main body having an inner
circumferential surface defining a diameter, the cylindrical pot
having a top edge and a bottom, the diameter of the cylindrical
pot increasing from the bottom to the top edge; and
a partitioning wall vertically partitioning the inner
circumferential surface of the cylindrical pot main body and
defining a first cavity above the partitioning wall and a second
cavity below the partitioning wall,
wherein the partitioning wall is elastic and slightly larger
than an inner diameter of a partition portion of the cylindrical pot
main body,
wherein the partitioning wall is configured to be
press-contacted by a frictional force in a state of applying a
contact pressure with the inner circumferential surface of the
cylindrical pot main body,
wherein the partition portion is positionable in a plurality
of different positions in a vertical direction with respect to the
inner circumferential surface of the pot main body to thereby
provide a plurality of different sizes of the first cavity above the
partitioning wall,
wherein the partitioning wall is impermeable to water and
engages the inner circumferential surface of the cylindrical pot
main body in a watertight manner to prevent liquids from moving
from one of the first and second cavities to the other of the first
and second cavities, and
wherein the first cavity defines a volume corresponding to
an amount of liquid deemed necessary for approximately one
week to two weeks of growth of the hydroculture plant.
Id. (emphasis added).

Appeal 2018-009161
Application 14/656,238

3
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ritter4
and Figueroa5; and
claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ritter,
Valiquette6, Swett7, and Figueroa.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ritter and Figueroa
Ritter describes, in combination, flowerpot 10 and partition and saucer
element 14. Ritter 2:25–33; Figs. 1, 4. Both are fabricated from water
impermeable materials. Id. at 3:17–20. Nevertheless, bottom 12 of
flowerpot 10 has area 13 of reduced thickness in its center. Id. at 2:25–29.
Likewise, partition and saucer element 14 has area 16 of reduced thickness.
Id. at 2:33–38.
According to Ritter, its main objects include “provid[ing] a partition
and pot having an area of reduced thickness in the bottom thereof which may
be broken out of one to permit the draining of moisture therethrough into the
other.” Id. at 1:49–50, 1:53–2:1. More specifically, Ritter teaches using
partition and saucer element 14 either as a partitioning wall mounted within

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1–3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, as well as the objections to the
Specification and drawings. Ans. 3.
4 US 2,484,909, issued Oct. 18, 1949.
5 US 5,050,342, issued Sept. 24, 1991.
6 US 6,247,269 B1, issued June 19, 2001.
7 US 3,391,816, issued July 9, 1968.
Appeal 2018-009161
Application 14/656,238

4
flowerpot 10, in which case area 16 of reduced thickness is broken out to
provide a drainage hole through the partitioning wall into the lower portion
of the pot; or as a saucer positioned beneath pot 10, in which case area 13 of
reduced thickness is broken away to permit the pot to drain into the saucer.
Id. at 1:18–28, 2:30–50, 3:1–8, Figs. 1 and 4.
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the partitioning wall is
impermeable to water and engages the inner circumferential surface of the
cylindrical pot main body in a watertight manner to prevent liquids from
moving from one of the first and second cavities to the other of the first and
second cavities.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds Ritter’s
partition and saucer element 14 is impermeable to water, as recited in
independent claim 1. Final Act. 7. According to the Examiner, Ritter
discloses partition and saucer element 14 are impermeable to water, and a
user has the option to not tear out area of reduced thickness 16. Id. (citing
Ritter 3:5–13). The Examiner further finds “[p]ots are known NOT to have
drainage openings and can still function as intended so it is not a
requirement in Ritter to remove the area of reduced thickness 16.” Ans. 5.
As Appellant points out, Ritter does not disclose an embodiment in
which partition and saucer element 14 is both impermeable to water and
used as a partitioning wall. Appeal Br. 8. In other words, when used as a
partitioning wall, area 16 of reduced thickness in partition and saucer
element 14 is broken out to allow water to drain through the element into the
lower portion of flowerpot 10. Ritter 1:18–28, 2:30–50. Moreover, we
agree with Appellant that if a user does not break out area 16 of reduced
thickness before using partition and saucer element 14 as a partitioning wall,
Appeal 2018-009161
Application 14/656,238

5
the partitioning wall would have been inoperative with respect to Ritter’s
object of permitting the drainage of moisture therethrough. Appeal Br. 7–8.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner has not shown persuasively
that Ritter discloses a partition wall impermeable to water, as recited in
independent claim 1. Figueroa, which the Examiner cites as evidence that it
was known to make a partitioning wall flexible, does not remedy this
deficiency. Final Act. 8. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 and claim 5 depending therefrom.

Rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ritter, Valiquette, Swett, and Figueroa
Similar to the limitation of independent claim 1 discussed above,
independent claim 2 recites “wherein the first partitioning wall and the
second partitioning walls are impermeable to water.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. The Examiner’s finding that Ritter discloses this limitation of
independent claim 2 is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above with
respect to independent claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely on
Valiquette, Swett, or Figueroa in a matter that would cure this deficiency.
Final Act. 9–15. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 2 and claim 3 depending therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5 is reversed.

REVERSED