Ponomarev, Sergey G.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 10, 2019

13644268 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 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.
13/644,268 10/04/2012 Sergey G. Ponomarev 12-0787-US-
NP (24691-546)
1800
60476 7590 10/10/2019
PATENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
LEE, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2019 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGEY G. PONOMAREV

Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 8–11, 13–15, and 18–21. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 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 The
Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

2
BACKGROUND

The present application generally relates to a method for cleaning a
contaminated surface. Specification (filed Oct. 4, 2012) (“Spec.”) ¶ 1. The
method is described as follows:
The method includes covering at least a portion of the
contaminated surface with an absorptive medium. At least a
portion of the absorptive medium is saturated with a cleaning
solution before the portion of the contaminated surface is
covered with the absorptive medium, or at least a portion of the
absorptive medium is saturated with a cleaning solution after
the portion of the contaminated surface is covered with the
absorptive medium. Steam is applied to the saturated absorptive
medium for a period of time to facilitate removing
contaminants from the contaminated surface and to facilitate
transferring the contaminants to the absorptive medium.

Id. ¶ 5.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A method for cleaning a contaminated surface, said
method comprising:
covering at least a portion of the contaminated surface
with an absorptive medium having a first side that contacts the
contaminated surface and a second side opposing the first side;
at least one of saturating at least a portion of the absorptive
medium with a cleaning solution before the portion of the
contaminated surface is covered with the absorptive medium, or
saturating at least a portion of the absorptive medium with a
cleaning solution after the portion of the contaminated surface
is covered with the absorptive medium;
discharging steam towards the saturated absorptive
medium from a nozzle positioned a distance from and
independent of the saturated absorptive medium such that
the nozzle is moved relative to the saturated absorptive
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

3
medium and the contaminated surface, the steam discharged
for a period of time to facilitate removing contaminants from
the contaminated surface and to facilitate transferring the
contaminants to the absorptive medium, wherein the steam is
discharged from the nozzle at a discharge pressure of at least
about 30 pounds per square inch, wherein the steam traverses
the second side of the absorptive medium as the nozzle moves
relative to the saturated absorptive medium such that the
cleaning solution in the saturated absorptive medium is forced
towards the contaminated surface, wherein the saturated
absorptive medium is substantially stationary relative to the
contaminated surface as steam is applied to the saturated
absorptive medium;
removing the absorptive medium from the contaminated
surface after the steam is applied thereto; and
rinsing the contaminated surface with a rinsing solution
that is different from the cleaning solution after at least one of
the absorptive medium is removed from the surface.

Appeal Brief (filed March 23, 2018) (“Appeal Br.”) 18 (Claims App’x)
(emphasis added).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 8–11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Carpet Article (How to Remove a Carpet Stain With an Iron,
WIKIHOW (Nov. 12, 2011), https://web.archive.org/web/201
11112231408/http://www.wikihow.com/Remove-a-Carpet-
Stain-With-an-Iron (“the Carpet Article”)) in view of Parisi
(US 4,433,451, issued Feb. 28, 1984) (as evidenced by U.S.
Patent No. 4,369,544), Zhou (CN 201396738, issued Feb. 3,
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

4
2010), the Argos Iron Article (Introduction to Irons, ARGOS
(Aug. 11, 2011), https://www.argos.co.uk/static/Buying
Guide/bgTrail/7.htm (“the Argos Iron Article”)), and
Nottingham et al. (US 2010/0126533 A1, published May 27,
2010) (“Nottingham”). Final Action (dated Nov. 17, 2017)
(“Final Act.”) 3–10.
2. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Carpet Article, in
view of Parisi, Zhou, the Argos Iron Article, Nottingham,
and Holt et al. (US 6,601,261 B1, issued Aug. 5, 2003)
(“Holt”). Id. at 10–11.
3. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Carpet Article, in
view of Parisi, Zhou, the Argos Iron Article, Nottingham,
and O’Bryan (US 4,168,563, issued Sept. 25, 1979). Id. at
11–13.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 8–11, 14, 15, 19, and
20 as obvious over the Carpet Article, in view of Parisi, Zhou, the Argos
Iron Article, and Nottingham. Id. at 3–10. Appellant presents arguments in
support of the patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–15. Appellant argues
that the remaining claims at issue are patentable for the same reasons as
claim 1. Id. at 15–16. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

5
The primary reference, the Carpet Article, teaches two methods of
cleaning a carpet stain. In the first method, one sprays a vinegar solution on
a carpet stain, places a damp towel over the carpet stain, and runs an iron
(set to “the highest steam setting available”) lightly over the damp towel
until the stain has been removed. The Carpet Article 1–2. In the second
method, one places a towel in a soap solution, arranges the towel over the
carpet stain, places the iron (set at a low steam setting) on the towel and lets
it sit. Id. at 3. The second method further teaches that “you may need to
move the iron to another part of the stain and repeat the steaming process
until the entire stain has been removed.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Parisi teaches a carpet cleaning device having
a steam nozzle positioned at a distance from a cloth absorptive medium.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Zhou teaches a cleaning
method “wherein a high-pressure steam is used,” and the Argos Iron article
“discloses that pressurized steam generator irons that release steam pressure
of up to 5 bar are known in the art.” Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that 5 bar
is approximately 72 pounds per square inch (psi). Id.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had reason to combine the teachings of the Carpet Article and Parisi so as to
achieve the result of “absorbing the stain through the absorptive medium”
and to “bring the contaminants to the surface.” Id. at 4–5. In the Answer,
the Examiner finds that “Parisi discloses that the steam nozzle can be
positioned a distance away from the absorptive medium and still achieve the
desired effect of moistening the absorptive medium with steam” and that
such result is predictable. Answer 5.
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

6
Appellant argues that the claims were rejected in error. In the initial
portion of its brief, Appellant discusses each of the cited references and
concludes that they “all describe systems in which an absorptive medium is
moved relative to a contaminated surface, and a discharge nozzle is either
coupled directly against the absorptive medium or stationary relative to the
absorptive medium.” Appeal Br. 9–11. This is merely conclusory and does
not address the rejection as formulated by the Examiner. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For its second argument, Appellant contends that the Examiner has
not articulated an adequate reason to combine and, instead, merely relies
upon hindsight. Id. at 11–13. Appellant argues that “the Carpet article
requires direct contact of the iron with the saturated cloth for operation.” Id.
at 11. Appellant further argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
having common sense at the time of the invention would not have
reasonably looked to the carpet article to solve the problem associated with
cleaning a contaminated surface by applying steam from a distance spaced
from the contaminated surface.” Id. at 12. Appellant additionally asserts
that the teachings of the Carpet Article and Parisi relied upon by the
Examiner are merely “isolated disclosures that have been pieced together in
an attempt to replicate the claimed subject matter.” Id. Appellant further
argues that the rejection is merely conclusory and lacks “articulated
reasoning.” Appeal Br. 13, 14–15.
We determine that the foregoing fails to show reversible error. The
Examiner concedes that the Carpet Article teaches that the iron is in contact
with the towel (absorptive medium). See Final Act. 4 (“The Carpet Article
does not explicitly disclose that the nozzle is positioned a distance from the
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

7
saturated absorptive medium.”). The Examiner looks to Parisi as teaching
this element. Id. Specifically, the Examiner cites to spray hose 127 in
Figures 3 and 6 as teaching a steam nozzle positioned at a distance. Id.
Figure 6 of Parisi is reproduced below.

Figure 6 of Parisi shows a section (side view) of the operating head of a
cleaning device. Parisi 3:11–12. Parisi teaches that “[t]he spray hose 127 is
located internally and acts on cloth 33 accomplishing the function of further
softening the difficult dirt.” Id. at 2:68–3:2. Figure 6 of Parisi depicts the
steam sprayed at an angle for increased dispersal.
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The question to be
asked is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417.
Here, the references teach that steam spray nozzles intended to be
used in contact with a cloth substrate as well as steam spray nozzles intended
to be used at a slight distance from a cloth substrate are both known in the
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

8
art. One of skill in the art would understand that either configuration would
be effective for stain removal.
Further, the Examiner has articulated a rationale in support of the
rejection. The Examiner determined that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of the Carpet Article and
Parisi so as to achieve the result of “absorbing the stain through the
absorptive medium” and to “bring the contaminants to the surface.” Final
Act. 4. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that “Parisi discloses that the
steam nozzle can be positioned a distance away from the absorptive medium
and still achieve the desired effect of moistening the absorptive medium with
steam” and that such result is predictable. Answer 5. Appellant has not
shown error in such reasoning.
For its third argument, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s proposed
combination would “render the cleaning method of the Carpet Article
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 13. More specifically,
Appellant argues that “positioning a clothes iron any distance from an
absorptive medium covering a contaminated surface, and then discharging
steam towards the absorptive medium from the clothes iron, would be
wholly ineffective at cleaning the contaminated surface, and would render
the Carpet Article unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Id.; see also id.
at 15. Appellant further argues that steam emitted from an iron is at a
pressure that requires the iron to be placed against the medium in order to
reach the “contaminated surface.” Id. at 13–14. Appellant asserts that none
of the cited references suggests discharging steam from a nozzle located at a
distance from the medium (cloth) and which is moved relative to the
medium. Id. at 14.
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

9
Thus, Appellant seems to argue that modification of the method of the
Carpet Article such that the steam is discharged from a distance would
render such method ineffective. In the Answer, the Examiner determines
that the cited references teach the use of high pressure steam irons as set
forth in the rejection. Answer 7; see Final Act. 5. The Examiner further
determines that Appellant’s arguments are “merely a conclusive statement
and Appellant has provided no evidence other than mere attorney
arguments.” Id.
We find Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. Appellant’s
contention regarding the lack of disclosure of a nozzle distant from the
medium (cloth or towel) is contradicted by the evidence of record. Parisi
teaches to emit steam from a distance above the cloth medium. See Parisi,
Figs. 3, 5, 6; see also id. at 1:48–51, 2:63–3:6. The Carpet Article teaches
that the steam nozzle may be moved relative to the stationary cloth medium.
Carpet Article 2, 4. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not support
Appellant’s contention that the method of the Carpet Article would be
rendered unsuitable for its intended purpose by modification as proposed by
the Examiner. Further, Appellant seeks to argue against the references
individually rather than the proposed combination. Non-obviousness,
however, “cannot be established by attacking references individually where
the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Board rules require that the brief shall contain “[t]he arguments of
appellant with respect to each ground of rejection, and the basis therefor,
with citations of the statutes, regulations, authorities, and parts of the Record
relied on.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Board rules further require that
Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

10
“[t]he arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant.” Id. To the extent that Appellant seeks to
advance any argument that does not comply with such requirement, it has
not been considered.
In view of all of the foregoing, as well as the findings of the Examiner
in the Final Office Action and the Answer, Appellant has failed to show
error in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8–11, 14, 15, 19, and 20.

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 13 as obvious over
the Carpet Article, in view of Parisi, Zhou, the Argos Iron Article,
Nottingham, and Holt. Final Act. 10–11. Appellant relies upon the same
arguments described above in support of its appeal of this rejection. Appeal
Br. 16. As we have not found such arguments to be persuasive, we
determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error with regard
to the rejection of claims 5 and 13.

Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 21 as obvious over
the Carpet Article, in view of Parisi, Zhou, the Argos Iron Article,
Nottingham, and O’Bryan. Final Act. 11–13. Appellant relies upon the
same arguments described above in regard to claims 1, 2, 8–11, 14, 15, 19,
and 20 (Rejection 1) in support of its appeal of this rejection. Appeal Br. 16.
As we have not found such arguments to be persuasive, we determine that
Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error with regard to the rejection
of claims 18 and 21.

Appeal 2019-000630
Application 13/644,268

11

CONCLUSION

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8–11, 14, 15,
19, and 20
§ 103(a), the Carpet
Article, Parisi, Zhou,
the Argos Iron Article,
and Nottingham
1, 2, 8–11,
14, 15, 19,
and 20

5 and 13 § 103(a), the Carpet
Article, Parisi, Zhou,
the Argos Iron Article,
Nottingham, and Holt
5 and 13
18 and 21 § 103(a), the Carpet
Article, Parisi, Zhou,
the Argos Iron Article,
Nottingham, and
O’Bryan
18 and 21
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 5, 8–11,
13–15, and
18–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED