Anthony Sgroi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2020

13088838 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2020)

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.
13/088,838 04/18/2011 Anthony Sgroi JR. UMI0034US2 9299
23413 7590 04/28/2020
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HAIL, JOSEPH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY SGROI JR., DANE UNGER, DAVID QUINLAN,
JENNIFER CARTER, LINDITA AJRO, PAUL ADAMS,
SCOTT E. MACHADO, BRUCE P. POPEK, CRAIG BURES,
DOUGLAS F. MELVILLE, JAMES DAHL, and RICHARD ANDRUS
____________

Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–9, 21–25, and 34–40. 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 Unger Marketing International, LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “dusting devices.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims
1 and 34 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A dusting device comprising at least one cleaning member
having a spine and a bundle of loose microfiber segments, the
loose microfiber segments being secured only to one another to
form said bundle, said bundle being secured to only one side of
said spine by a seam, said spine providing a resilient flexibility
to said at least one cleaning member such that said spine flexes
as pressure is applied, but at least partially returns to an original
shape upon removal of said pressure.

THE REJECTIONS2
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Gracindo US 2006/0191089 A1 Aug. 31, 2006
Policicchio US 2007/0084006 A1 Apr. 19, 2007
Yamada US 2008/0148508 A1 June 26, 2008
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 21–24, and 40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Policicchio and Yamada.

2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 8, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite, has been withdrawn. Ans. 3; Non-
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
3
II. Claims 1, 3–5, 83, 23, 25, and 34–39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gracindo
and Yamada.

OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 21–24, and 40 as a group.
Appeal Br. 3 (“[c]laims 1–9, 21–25, and 40 stand and fall together”); see
also id. at 7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Policicchio
discloses a cleaning member having a spine (i.e., base plate 4), a first bundle
of loose microfiber segments (i.e., first fiber layer 20), and a second bundle
of loose microfiber segments (i.e., second and optional fiber layers 22, 24).
Ans. 3 (citing Policicchio ¶ 25); see also Non-Final Act. 3; Policicchio,
Figure. The Examiner also finds that Policicchio’s first bundle is secured to
only one side of Policicchio’s spine (or base plate 4) by a seam, because
Policicchio discloses that “the bundles are heat sealed with the base
sheet” (Policicchio ¶ 25), and also that “the base sheet [is] removably
attached to only one side of the spine by means to include . . . adhesive”
(Policicchio ¶ 17), “wherein the location of attachment of . . . adhesive
[is] considered the seam,” as claimed. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner

3 The inclusion of claim 7 and the omission of claim 8 from the list of claims
in the summary of the rejection are typographical errors, as the Examiner
presents findings and reasoning for the subject matter of claim 7 in Rejection
I and of claim 8 in Rejection II. Non-Final Act. 5, 6–7.
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
4
further finds that Policicchio discloses that the spine (i.e., base plate 4)
provides a resilient flexibility, as claimed. Id. at 3–4 (citing Policchio ¶ 28).
The Examiner determines that Policicchio fails to disclose that the
microfiber segments of each bundle are secured only to one another to form
a bundle, as required by claim 1, and the Examiner relies on Yamada for
disclosing that filaments 30 of fiber bundle 7 are secured together at
bundling portion 40, wherein the “bundling portion is a heat-sealed seam.”
Non-Final Act. 4 (Yamada ¶ 60); see also Yamada, ¶¶ 55–60, Fig. 5. The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to secure the loose
microfiber segments of each bundle only to one another to form the bundle,
as taught in Yamada, “to maintain the fibers collectively until the fiber
bundle/layer is attached to the additional layers.” Non-Final Act. 4.
Thus, we understand that the Examiner’s proposed modification
involves securing the loose fibers of Policicchio’s fiber layer 20 only to one
another by heat sealing to form a first bundle, as taught in Yamada, and
further, securing the loose fibers of adjacent second and optional fiber layers
22, 24 only to one another by heat sealing to form a second bundle, as taught
in Yamada. We also understand the Examiner’s proposed modification to
involve securing the resulting first bundle to base sheet 10 by a heat seal,
wherein base sheet 10 (and attached bundle) is secured to only one side of
base plate 4 (i.e., a spine) by an adhesive (i.e., a seam) as disclosed in
Policicchio, such that the first bundle is at least indirectly secured to only
one side of the spine by a seam, as claimed. The Examiner’s proposed
modification would also logically require securing the resulting first bundle
(i.e., the bundled fibers of first fiber layer 20) and the resulting second
bundle (i.e., the bundled fibers of second and optional fiber layers 22, 24) to
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
5
second sheet 14. See Policicchio’s Figure (excluding optional base and third
sheets 12, 16).
Appellant argues that
Policicchio fails to teach or suggest that this fiber layer 20 has
loose fibers – much less loose fibers that are secured only to one
another, as in claim 1.
Stated another way, the microfiber segments that are
secured only to one another of claim 1 eliminates the base sheet
of Policicchio, but retains the functionality of the structure of
Policicchio.
Appeal Br. 4. (citing In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896 (CCPA 1966)).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
Policicchio discloses loose fibers in fiber layers 20, 22, 24. See, e.g.,
Policicchio ¶ 19 (“fiber layers comprise a plurality of long fibers,” which
may “continuously extend in at least one direction as related to the base
sheet”), Figure. Additionally, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies on
Yamada, not Policicchio, for teaching securing the loose fibers only to one
another to form a bundle. See, e.g., Yamada ¶ 58 (disclosing, with reference
to Figure 5, that “[t]here are no particular limitations regarding the means for
bundling together the filaments 30 to obtain the filament bundling body 31,
and it is possible to select a suitable means according to the material of the
filaments 30,” for example, “[w]hen filaments 30 consist of a material with
fusibility, heat sealing is suitable” or “impregnation with adhesive or mutual
binding of the filaments 30 by sewing is possible” or “it is also possible to
combine these methods with each other”).4

4 Notably, Policicchio itself appears to teach bundling loose fibers within a
fiber layer only to one another by heat-fusing to form a bundle, such that it is
easier to attach the bundles to adjacent sheets, as reasoned by the Examiner:
“[t]he fiber layers include groups or collections of fibers that, unless
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
6
To the extent Appellant is arguing that the Examiner is relying on
Policicchio’s base sheet 10 to secure Policicchio’s loose fibers only to one
another to form a bundle, Appellant’s argument does not address the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner as set forth supra, which relies on
Yamada, not Policchio for teaching formation of the bundle. Appellant does
not otherwise present sufficient arguments or evidence for interpreting the
language of claim 1 as excluding a base sheet from being present in the
recited dusting device. Notably, during patent prosecution when claims can
be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of
language explored, and clarification imposed. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellant also argues that “[t]o the extent that one can assert that base
sheet 10 of Policicchio reads on the claimed ‘spine’, . . . Policicchio fails to
teach or suggest that the base sheet provides resilient flexibility as claimed.”
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument, however, fails to
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner supra, which relies on
Policicchio’s base plate 4, not base sheet 10, as corresponding to the
claimed spine, which is required to provide a resilient flexibility, as claimed.
Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning.
Appellant further argues that “Policicchio fails to teach or suggest that
the resultant structure is sewn to a spine,” rather, “Policicchio merely
discloses that the base plate 4 of the holder 2 ‘engages’ the dusting article
6.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added) (citing Policicchio ¶ 27). Appellant also

otherwise noted, are not heat-fused together or are heat fused as a
mechanism for attaching the fiber layers to other layers.” Policicchio ¶ 19
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
7
submits that Policicchio only discloses “removably” attaching Policicchio’s
base sheet 10 to base plate 4 (or spine). Id. (citing Policicchio ¶ 17).
Claim 1 supra requires the bundle to be secured to only one side of
the spine “by a seam,” but does not require the seam to be a sewn seam, and
Appellant does not present any support for interpreting the claim term seam
as requiring a permanent attachment. The Specification provides a very
broad, express definition of the claim term “seam”: “the term ‘seam’ shall
mean any continuous or non-continuous connection between microfiber
bundle 16 and flexible spine 18,” wherein “[s]eam 20 can be a sewn seam, a
glued seam, a welded seam, woven seam, and any combinations thereof.”
Spec. ¶ 48 (emphasis added). Although Policicchio discloses removably
attaching the base sheet to the holder, Policicchio discloses, as a non-
limiting example, using an adhesive attachment, and thus, Appellant’s
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Policicchio discloses a seam, for example, a glued seam. Policicchio ¶ 17.
Relatedly, Appellant concludes that “Policicchio teaches away from
modifications that secure the dusting article 6 to the base plate 4 by a seam.”
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). However, Appellant’s argument does not
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner supra, which relies on
Policicchio for disclosing the claimed seam, without further modification to
provide for a seam.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification
renders Policicchio unsuitable for its intended purpose and/or changes the
principal of operation of Policicchio. Appeal Br. 5. However, the
Examiner’s modification of Policicchio’s fibers in fiber layer 20 to be
bundled pursuant to Yamada’s teaching, as discussed supra, does not render
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
8
Policicchio’s dusting article unsuitable for dusting or change its principal of
operation as an implement to remove dust. Moreover, Appellant’s
arguments are conclusory (without any argument or evidence), and our
reviewing court instructs us that lawyer arguments and conclusory
statements which are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
probative value. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding Yamada, Appellant argues that “the microfiber segments
that are secured only to one another of claim 1 eliminates the base sheet of
Yamada, but retains the functionality of the structure.” Appeal Br. 6.
However, the Examiner’s proposed modification does not bodily incorporate
Yamada’s base sheet (i.e., material sheet 6), but rather relies only on
Yamada’s teaching with respect to bundling fibers to each other, as set forth
supra. Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Appellant also argues that “[t]o the extent that one can assert that the
base sheet 6 of Yamada reads on the claimed ‘spine’, Appellant submits that
Yamada fails to teach or suggest that the base sheet provides resilient
flexibility as claimed.” Appeal Br. 6. Again, however, Appellant’s
argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner
supra, as the Examiner relies on Policicchio for disclosing a spine, namely,
base plate 4, as set forth supra, and not on Yamada’s material sheet 6.
Appellant further argues that “Yamada fails to teach or suggest that
the cleaning device 1 is sewn to support bars 5,” rather, “Yamada
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
9
specifically requires that the base sheet 6 has [a] handle mounting portion 2
with insertion holes 3 that removably receive the support bars 5 of the
handle 2.” Appeal Br. 7. Again, however, the Examiner does not rely on
Yamada for disclosing that the bundle is secured to only one side of the
spine by a seam; instead, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies on
Policicchio for disclosing the claimed seam. Thus, Appellant’s argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Appellant further argues that “Yamada teaches away from
modifications that secure the cleaning device 1 to the handle 2 with a seam.”
Appeal Br. 7. However, as discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Yamada
for modifying Policicchio’s loose fibers to form a bundle, as claimed, and
not for securing Policicchio’s loose fibers, once bundled, to Policicchio’s
base plate 4 (or spine). Thus, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification
renders Yamada unsuitable for its intended purpose and/or changes the
principal of operation of Yamada. Appeal Br. 5. However, the Examiner is
not proposing a modification to Yamada’s cleaning device, but rather to
Policicchio’s fibers. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 as unpatentable over Policicchio and Yamada, and claims 2, 6, 7, 9,
21–24, and 40 fall therewith.

Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
10
Rejection II
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3–5, 8, 23, and 25
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gracindo
discloses, inter alia, a cleaning member having a spine (i.e., head 218) and a
bundle of loose microfiber segments (i.e., “cleaning pad 11 compris[ing]
micro-fibers”), the bundle being secured to only one side of the spine by a
seam (i.e., “seam attaching fibers to upper portion 10[5] of cleaning pad
11 as shown in Fig. 27”). Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 4.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that
Gracindo requires that the pockets 304 to receive the heads 216,
218 of the tool such that the pockets 304 of the cleaning pad 11
are on both sides of the heads 216, 218. Thus, Gracindo fails to
disclose or suggest that the cleaning pad 11 is secured to only
one side of the heads 216, 218 a seam as claimed.
Appeal Br. 9.
As an initial matter, we find that the Examiner errs by relying on the
connection between the fibers of cleaning pad 11 and attachment portion
103 of cleaning pad 11 as the seam that secures cleaning pad 11 to support
head 218. See, e.g., fn 5. Not only is Gracindo silent as to how such a
connection is made, but such a connection does not secure cleaning pad 11
(as a bundle) to support head 218 (as a spine), as required by claim 1; rather,
such a connection is internal to cleaning pad 11.

5 Although Figure 27 indicates the upper portion of cleaning pad 11 by
reference numeral 10, Gracindo describes such upper portion as “attachment
portion 103”: “[c]leaning pad 11 is generally known in the art and
comprised of a combination of fibers defining a cleaning surface 101 and
attachment portion 103 (FIG. 27).” Policicchio ¶ 96; cf. id. ¶ 55 (“holder 10
is designed to be used with a . . . cleaning pad”), Fig. 1 (depicting holder 10
as generally indicating the handle of the cleaning implement).
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
11
We are also persuaded by Appellant’s argument supra, which
addresses the connection that is made between cleaning pad 11 (as modified
by Yamada to form bundles) and support head 218 (or the spine). Gracindo
discloses that “sleeve-like cleaning pad 11 is mounted over the attachment
members 302a, 302b” of support heads 216, 218. Gracindo ¶ 97, Fig. 27.
More specifically, “attachment portion 103 [of cleaning pad 11] defines a
pair of pockets or sleeves 304a, 304b configured to receive the attachment
members 302a, 302b.” Id. ¶ 96. Because Gracindo’s cleaning pad 11 is
secured to support head 218 by a pocket that surrounds support head 218, a
preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s finding that
Gracindo’s cleaning pad 11 is secured to only one side of the support head
218, as required by claim 1; rather cleaning pad 11 is secured about support
head 218, such that cleaning pad 11 is secured to all sides of support head
218 by pockets 304a, 304b.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 3–5, 8, 23, and 25 as unpatentable over
Gracindo and Yamada.

Independent claim 34 and dependent claims 35–39
Regarding independent claim 34, the Examiner finds that Gracindo
discloses spines (i.e., support heads 216, 218) and microfiber bundles (i.e.,
cleaning pads 11 comprising microfibers). Non-Final Act. 6 (citing, e.g.,
Gracindo ¶ 106). The Examiner determines that Gracindo fails to disclose
that each bundle comprises microfiber segments secured to one another by a
first seam, and the Examiner relies on Yamada, for disclosing that filaments
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
12
30 of fiber bundle 7 are secured together at bundling portion 40, wherein the
“bundling portion is a heat-sealed [first] seam.”6 Id. at 7 (Yamada ¶ 60).
The Examiner also determines that Gracindo fails to disclose that each
bundle is secured to a different spine by a second seam, as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Yamada for disclosing securing each bundle to a
different one of the spines by a second seam, because “lines 63 as shown in
Fig. 10 create openings in the base material sheet for insertion of
spines.”7 Non-Final Act. 7. Yamada discloses
handle mounting portion 2 is formed of a non-woven fabric sheet
with fusibility. . . . [I]t is possible, for example, [to] superimpose
two non-woven fabric sheets one upon the other, and fuse them
to each other at three fusion lines 63 arranged at predetermined
intervals. . . . As a result, bag-like handle mounting portions 2
with a mounting portion base 64 at their bottom are formed
separately from the base material sheet 6. At one end of the
handle mounting portions 2, two insertion holes 3 are formed
side by side, and the support bars 5 of the handle 4 shown in FIG.
1 can be respectively inserted into them.
Yamada ¶ 84; Fig. 10 (emphasis added). The Examiner reasons that

6 Appellant’s arguments that are directed to Policicchio as a secondary
reference of Rejection II are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by
the Examiner supra, which relies on Yamada, not Policicchio, as a
secondary reference. Appeal Br. 11–12; Ans. 5 (“[A]ppellant is mistaken in
the prior art cited in the rejection of claims 34–39.”).
7 In the Examiner’s Answer, and consistent with the Examiner’s findings
with respect to claim 1 supra, the Examiner relies on Gracinda, not Yamada,
for disclosing securing each cleaning pad 11 to a different support head 216,
218 (or spine) by a second seam: “seam attaching fibers to upper portion
10 of cleaning pad 11 as shown in Fig. 27.” Ans. 5–6. However, we
determine that this alternative finding is erroneous for the reasons stated
supra with respect to claim 1, namely, the connection between the fibers of
each cleaning pad 11 to attachment portion 103 of each cleaning pad 11 fails
to disclose a second seam that secures cleaning pads 11 to support heads
216, 218.
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
13
the combined teachings of Gracindo et al., as modified by
Yamada, are cited as they suggest microfiber bundles secured to
the spines by sewn seams that creates openings in the base
material (lines 63 as shown in Fig. 10 of Yamada). It is the
presence of the sewn seams that creates openings or pockets in
the base material sheet for insertion of the spines in order to
secure the bundles to the spines in the manner as claimed.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Gracinda “only generically
disclos[es] cleaning pads . . . with pockets removably secured on heads.”
Appeal Br. 13.
We agree with Appellant that merely adding fused (or even sewn)
seams to Gracinda’s pockets 304a, 304b for the purpose of forming pockets
304a, 304b on Gracinda’s cleaning pad 11, as the rejection is articulated by
the Examiner, fails to result in a seam that functions to secure a bundle (i.e.,
Gracindo’s cleaning pad 11) to a spine (i.e., Gracinda’support head 218), as
required by claim 34.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 34, and claims 35–39 depending therefrom.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7,
9, 21–24,
40
103(a) Policicchio, Yamada 1, 2, 6, 7,
9, 21–24,
40

1, 3–5, 8,
23, 25, 34–
39
103(a) Gracindo, Yamada 1, 3–5, 8, 23,
25, 34–39
Appeal 2019-006013
Application 13/088,838
14
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6, 7,
9, 21–24,
40
3–5, 8, 25, 34–
39
AFFIRMED IN PART
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).