Red Letter Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 15, 2021

2021003208 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

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.
16/293,217 03/05/2019 Anthony F. Mullet 3325001US4AP 7590
27542 7590 11/15/2021
SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
AEGIS TOWER, SUITE 1100
4940 MUNSON STREET, NW
CANTON, OH 44718-3615
EXAMINER
ROMANO, ASHLEY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2021 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):
docket@sswip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY F. MULLET, BRYAN S. MULLET,
JOSHUA A. MULLET, and JAMES S. ARNOLD

Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 11–15, and 17–20.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Red Letter
Holdings, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
2 The Examiner has indicated that claims 8–10 and 16 recite allowable
subject matter. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification describes “methods and systems for trash
collection,” and more particularly, “methods and systems involving a
dumpster and a dumpster housing in which the dumpster may be disposed.”
Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
providing a dumpster housing defining an interior
chamber in which is disposed a dumpster, the dumpster having a
left wall spaced apart from a left sidewall of the dumpster
housing and not in contact therewith, and a right wall spaced
apart from a right sidewall of the dumpster housing and not in
contact therewith; and
lifting with a garbage truck lift the dumpster out of the
interior chamber, wherein the step of lifting is performed by an
operator of the garbage truck without the operator coming into
contact with the dumpster housing.
Appeal Br. 26.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 11–15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Goode.3
2. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Wagner.4

3 Goode, US 2013/0277633 A1, pub. Oct. 24, 2013.
4 Wagner, US 8,668,186 B1, iss. Mar. 11, 2014.
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

3
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Goode in view of Gaddis.5
4. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Goode in view of Vollmar.6
DISCUSSION
Claims 1–4, 6, 11–15
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Goode discloses a
method as claimed. Final Act. 2. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
findings with respect to this rejection as it applies to claim 1 specifically.
See id. at 2, 7–8; see also Ans. 4–5. For the reasons discussed below, we are
not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments.
Goode discloses “a novel dumpster enclosure having replaceable
panels and a front gate designed with sockets positioned to allow access to a
dumpster lift arm opening for removal of the dumpster front enclosure by a
garbage truck without exiting the garbage truck.” Goode, Abstract. Goode
discloses a dumpster housing made of panels 5, poles 6, and café doors 8.
Id. ¶ 46. A dumpster 1 is disposed within the housing and “has dumpster
arms 2 with dumpster arm lift openings 3.” Id. ¶ 45. In use, Goode
discloses that, in order to remove the dumpster, the lifting arms of a garbage
truck pass through the front door of the enclosure and into the dumpster arm
openings after which the dumpster is lifted and the doors are opened as the
truck moves with the dumpster. Id. ¶ 41.

5 Gaddis, US 4,782,628, iss. Nov. 8, 1988.
6 Vollmar, US 3,500,585, iss. Mar. 17, 1970.
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

4
Appellant argues that Goode does not disclose a method as required
by claim 1 because Goode does not teach lifting the dumpster out of the
housing. Appeal Br. 17–20. More specifically, Appellant asserts that the
claim requires vertically lifting the dumpster out of the top of the housing
and argues that Goode does not disclose lifting of the dumpster in this
manner. Id. Further, Appellant asserts that, even if Goode teaches vertically
lifting the dumpster, such “vertical movement is limited in range by the
upper limits of the openings in the café doors, and necessarily precludes the
ability for the dumpster to be lifted out of the top of the enclosure as recited
in claim 1.” Id. at 19–20.
We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of the claim as requiring
vertical lifting of the dumpster out of the top of the housing. The claim
language at issue recites, “lifting with a garbage truck lift the dumpster out
of the interior chamber” of the dumpster housing and does not require lifting
“out of the top of the enclosure,” as Appellant asserts. We determine that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that the dumpster
is picked up and moved to a position outside of the interior of the dumpster
housing, which is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
“lift” and associated disclosure in the Specification. See https://
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lift (definition of “lift”: “to
take hold of and raise something in order to remove, carry, or move it to a
different position”); see also Spec. Fig. 8 (showing the dumpster is picked
up and moved to a different position during the lifting action). In light of
this broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that
Goode discloses lifting the dumpster out of the interior of the enclosure, i.e.,
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

5
Goode teaches that the dumpster is picked up and moved out of the interior
of the enclosure. See Goode ¶ 41.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1 as anticipated by Goode. Appellant does not provide separate
arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2–4, 6, and 11–15, and
thus, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of those claims for
the same reasons. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 6,
and 11–15.
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, we agree with Appellant that the claim
language reciting “a dumpster housing defining an interior chamber . . . over
which extends a closed cover door of the dumpster housing” requires a
structure that extends on top of the interior chamber. The plain language of
the claim requires that this structure is a cover door that extends over the
interior chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
these limitations collectively require a door that is disposed on top of the
housing, which is consistent with how the invention is described in
Specification.
We are not persuaded that the claim should be interpreted more
broadly by the Examiner’s analysis. To the extent the Examiner provides
dictionary definitions to support a broader interpretation, we do not see how
the Examiner has analyzed these terms in the context of the claim as a whole
or in the context of how the terms are used in the Specification. See Ans. 5.
We also disagree with the Examiner to the extent the Examiner states, “it is
also noted that Para. 41 of the Goode reference refers to the doors as a
‘dumpster covering’ in line 3 of the paragraph.” Id. Goode discloses “[t]he
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

6
doors can partially cover the front with the dumpster covering the rest of the
front and acting as part of the front gate.” Goode ¶ 41. Although this
statement indicates there are doors on the dumpster housing, they are not
described as a dumpster covering.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has not established that Goode teaches a cover as required by claim 20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20.
Claim 19
We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 19 because the
Examiner has failed to establish that Wagner discloses a method including
the step of providing a dumpster housing with a sidewall that defines an
interior chamber and “left and right lift-receiving through openings in
communication with interior chamber.”
With respect to this claim, the Examiner finds that Wagner discloses a
dumpster housing 10 with a sidewall, an interior chamber, and lift receiving
through openings in communication with the interior chamber. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner further explains:
As can best be seen in Figures 1–2 of the referenced Wagner,
channels 16 are accessed by a garbage truck lift through left and
right lift-receiving through openings in communication with an
interior chamber. Left and right lift-receiving through openings
are the space in front of the channels 16 through which the
channels are accessed with a garbage truck lift.
Id. at 8.
We agree with Appellant that claim 19 recites left and right lift-
receiving through openings that are defined in the sidewall of the dumpster
housing. See Appeal Br. 23. Although the Examiner asserts that the claim
does not recite that the through openings are defined in the sidewall of the
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

7
housing, the Examiner does not provide further explanation, and the plain
language of the claim appears to require that the sidewall defines the through
openings.
Wagner discloses sidewall 21 in the form of screens including a
screen that is part of the gate 30 on the front portion of the apparatus. See
Wagner col. 4, ll. 30–48. Wagner discloses that the gate is opened “via a
downward force provided by a pair of loading arms” on a front loading
garbage truck. Id. After the gate is lowered, the loading arms engage the
dumpster to empty it in a conventional manner. Id. col. 7, ll. 24–28, 48–50.
Wagner does not disclose any specific openings in gate 30 or any other
openings in the sidewall 21. Given this disclosure, we fail to see how
Wagner discloses any through openings defined by sidewalls in the housing.
We disagree with the Examiner that the empty space created after Wagner’s
gate is lowered may be considered a pair of through holes defined by
sidewalls as the claim requires.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error and do not sustain
the rejection of claim 19.
Obviousness Rejections
With respect to the rejections of claims 5, 7, 17, and 18, Appellant
argues only that the art of record does not cure the alleged deficiency in the
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 24–25. As discussed, we are not persuaded
of any deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, and thus, for the reasons
discussed, we also sustain the rejections of claims 5, 7, 17, and 18.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, and 18. We
REVERSE the rejections of claims 19 and 20.
Appeal 2021-003208
Application 16/293,217

8
In summary:
DECISION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 11–
15, 20
102(a)(1) Goode 1–4, 6, 11–
15
20
19 102(a)(1) Wagner 19
5, 7, 18 103 Goode, Gaddis 5, 7, 18
17 103 Goode, Vollmer 17
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 11–15,
17, 18
19, 20

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

AFFIRMED IN PART