2021001314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

SANSEVA LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 2021

2021001314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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. 14/403,016 11/21/2014 Derek Batey 030600-000710US 1036 12075 7590 09/30/2021 Butzel Long 1909 K St. NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER PAGAN, JENINE MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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@butzel.com kamlay@butzel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DEREK BATEY Appeal 2021-001314 Application 14/403,016 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18, 23, 24, 29, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sanseva, Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001314 Application 14/403,016 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “to cleaning apparatus for mobile electronic devices, particularly for such devices having touch-sensitive screens.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A housing for containing a removable mobile electronic device, wherein at least a portion of an inner surface of the housing comprises a cleaning material having a substantially permanent antimicrobial surface treatment, the housing comprising two congruent sheets of resilient material fixed together at three edges and arranged such that major inner surfaces of the housing are biased together, the housing having an opening between the congruent sheets of resilient material for sliding insertion and removal of the device into and out of the housing between the congruent sheets of resilient material; wherein, when the device is slidably removed from and/or inserted into the housing through the opening, the cleaning material wipes along, and thereby cleans at least part of the surface of the device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Roberts US 2012/0114270 A1 May 10, 2012 Zar US 2013/0118935 A1 May 16, 2013 REJECTION Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18, 23, 24, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zar and Roberts. Appeal 2021-001314 Application 14/403,016 3 OPINION The “Biasing” Limitation Regarding independent claims 1 and 23, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Roberts teaches the claimed biasing feature. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3. The Examiner relies upon Figure 2 of Roberts as disclosing this feature. Ans. 4. The sole basis for the Examiner’s finding is that because the layers in Roberts’s pouch are connected on three sides, then the layers must be biased together. The Examiner points to the bottom of the container as seen in Figure 2, but all this shows is that the layers are attached to each other at that location. Neither the text of Roberts nor the Figures discloses any biasing in the area where the layers are not affixed to one another. As Appellant points out, “Roberts describes the various layers as being made from various kinds of ‘fabric’” such that “[t]here is no suggestion of a structure or fabrication technique that would cause the fabric layers to be biased together.” Reply Br. 4. We further agree that “[t]he mere connection of adjacent sheets of fabric at two or three edges will not necessarily bias those sheets together.” Id. The Examiner appears to rely on inherency for this claimed feature, but has failed to show with evidence that Roberts’s structure would necessarily result in the claimed biasing as the fabric disclosed in Roberts may or may not create such biasing; Roberts is simply silent on this issue. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 23. “Removability” Dependent claim 5 requires that “the cleaning material is removable from the housing.” According to the Examiner, this feature is taught in Zar because Figure 4 shows the various layers separated from one another and thus that the layers “are removable and interchangeable.” Ans. 3. Although Appeal 2021-001314 Application 14/403,016 4 we do not disagree with the “interchangeable” portion of the Examiner’s statement, we do disagree with the finding that the layers are removable. As Appellant points out, “Figure 4 shows an ‘exploded view’ of the device to illustrate the separate layers.” Reply Br. 2. Exploded views do not necessarily mean that the components shown therein are separable as shown in the drawing. Such a drawing is merely utilized to better show details of individual components within a device without the disadvantages of showing them fully assembled. We do not take such an exploded view as teaching that the layers are necessarily removable. Nor does interchangeability equate to removability. As described in Zar, the discussion surrounding the layers is in relation to the construction of the device. Zar ¶ 14. As such, the device may comprise all or various combinations of the disclosed layers, but this does not necessarily mean that once the device is constructed, any of those layers may be removed from the device. It merely means that various layers may be chosen as part of the device during such construction. As such, we do not agree that the Examiner has properly shown that Zar teaches the claimed removability. For these separate reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 nor the claims dependent therefrom. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. Appeal 2021-001314 Application 14/403,016 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9– 13, 15–18, 23, 24, 29, 30 103 Zar, Roberts 1, 3–7, 9– 13, 15–18, 23, 24, 29, 30 REVERSED