Masahiro MuranakaDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 201914656238 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation