Ex Parte BORINATO

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2019

14162234 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/162,234 01/23/2014
30827 7590 01/29/2019
Dentons US LLP
1900 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gianni BORINATO
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15261503.000001.USOO 4602
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2019 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):
mlaip@dentons.com
paul.fugitt@dentons.com
mlapto@mckennalong.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIANNI BORINATO
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-20, and 22-27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the "real party in interest ... is Positec Power
Tools (Suzhou) Co., Ltd." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
According to Appellant, the "invention relates to a portable washing
device." Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 25 are the independent claims on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A portable washing device, comprising:
a housing;
a motor arranged in the housing;
a pump driven by the motor;
a container connected to the pump and configured to store
a washing liquid;
a flexible tube connected to the pump;
a spraying pistol connected to the pump by way of the
flexible tube, the spraying pistol being configured to be held and
controlled by a user using one hand to spray out the washing
liquid from the spraying pistol; and
a control unit configured to change one or more of an
operating mode or a rotation speed of the motor
wherein the control unit is positioned on the spraying
pistol in a location to facilitate simultaneous operation of the
control unit and holding of the spraying pistol with the user's one
hand.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: 2
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 19, 20, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b)
as anticipated by Attar (US 2005/0156060 Al, pub. July 21,
2005);
2 We reorder claim rejections from the order presented in the Final Office
Action and Answer.
2
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
II. Claims 6, 7, 16-18, 23, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Attar;
III. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Attar
and Lindell (US 6,571,596 Bl, iss. June 3, 2003);
IV. Claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Attar and Parks (US 5,588,303, iss. Dec. 31, 1996);
V. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-20, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Baker (US 4,801,088,
iss. Jan. 31, 1989) and Attar;
VI. Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Attar; and
VII. Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Attar
and Cooper (US 5,826,803, iss. Oct. 27, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner's Final
Office Action and Answer, and Appellant's Appeal Brief and Reply Brief,
Appellant persuades us that the Examiner's rejection is in error. Thus, for
the reasons discussed below, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 19, 20, 22, and 27,
based on Attar.
As set forth above, claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
a control unit configured to change one or more of an
operating mode or a rotation speed of the motor[,]
wherein the control unit is positioned on the spraying
pistol in a location to facilitate simultaneous operation of the
control unit and holding of the spraying pistol with the user's one
hand.
3
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
Appeal Br., Claims App. To reject the claim, the Examiner finds that Attar's
dial 62 and trigger 66 disclose the claimed "control unit" (Final Act. 2), and
that "a user can grasp the grip of spraying pistol 60 using the third, fourth[,]
and fifth fingers ( of the right hand) and reach dial 62 using the index finger
and thumb. Trigger 66 can be reached using the index finger while grasping
the grip with the remaining fingers" (Answer 12-13). Appellant argues that
the Examiner errs because "one of ordinary skill would recognize that the
configuration illustrated in Attar would likely require two hands----one to
hold ... nozzle 60, and one to operate ... dial 62." Appeal Br. 11.
As stated above, we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection. First, we note
that the Examiner does not support adequately, and it is not clear from our
review of Attar, that Attar's trigger 66 changes the motors' operating mode
or rotation speed, such that trigger 66 discloses the claimed control unit as
required by claim 1. Thus, for Attar to anticipate the claim, based on the
Examiner's stated findings, Attar must disclose that dial 62 is positioned on
a spraying pistol in a location to facilitate simultaneous operation of the dial
and holding of the spraying pistol with a user's one hand. But, the Examiner
does not establish that Attar's dial 62 is so positioned. Instead, it is only
conjecture by the Examiner that "a user can grasp the grip of spraying
pistol 60 using the third, fourth[,] and fifth fingers ( of the right hand) and
reach dial 62 using the index finger and thumb." Answer 12. Restated, the
Examiner does not cite evidence that would support adequately the
Examiner's finding. Therefore, we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection, or the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 19, 20, 22, and 27, as anticipated
by Attar.
4
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
Rei ections II-IV
Claims 6, 7, 16-18, 23, 24, and 26 depend from independent claim 1.
The Examiner does not demonstrate how an obvious variation of Attar
remedies the above deficiency in claim 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection, based solely on Attar, of
claims 6, 7, 16-18, 23, 24, and 26.
Claims 12-15 also depend from independent claim 1. The Examiner
does not demonstrate how either Lindell or Parks remedies the above
deficiency in claim 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of dependent claims 12-15.
Reiection V
With respect to the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1 based on Baker and Attar, the Examiner finds that Baker discloses
almost all of the claim's recitation, but finds that Baker does not disclose
that its control unit 50 is configured to change a motor rotation speed.
Answer 7-8. The Examiner relies on Attar's dial 62, discussed supra, to
disclose this claim recitation. Id. at 8. The Examiner further finds that
Attar's dial 62 may be provided "in lieu of or in conjunction with [Baker's]
switch 50." Id. at 24.
We do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection, for reasons
similar to those discussed above with respect to the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1. In particular, to the extent that the Examiner proposes
to provide Attar's dial 62 in place of and in the location of Baker's control
unit 50, it is not clear that control unit 50 itself is, or dial 62 in control
unit 50' s location would be, positioned on a spraying pistol in a location to
5
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
facilitate simultaneous operation of the dial and holding of the spraying
pistol with a user's one hand, as required by the claim. Further, to the extent
that the Examiner proposes to reposition dial 62 such that it is situated on a
spraying pistol in a location to facilitate simultaneous operation of the dial
and holding of the spraying pistol with a user's one hand, it is not clear that
such is shown or suggested by either Attar or Baker, and, further, the
Examiner provides no rational reason to so locate dial 62. Thus, it would
appear that the only suggestion to locate dial 62, as claimed, would be
provided by Appellant. Therefore, we do not sustain claim 1 's obviousness
rejection, or the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11, 13-20, and 22-24
depending therefrom, as obvious based on Baker and Attar.
Rei ections VI and VII
With regard to independent claim 25, the Examiner finds that the
"[c]laim ... stands rejected under ... 35 U.S.C. [§] 102(b) as anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under ... 35 U.S.C. [§] 103(a) as obvious over
Attar ... in view of Cooper." Answer 6. We note, however, that the
Examiner's subsequent findings do not indicate that either Attar or Cooper
discloses all of the claim recitations. See id. at 7 ("Attar discloses the
limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a filter inside the
flexible tube."). Thus, the Examiner does not support adequately that either
Attar or Cooper anticipates claim 25.
Regarding the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 25 based on
Attar and Cooper, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to utilize
Cooper's filter that is "inside a garden hose when nut 16 is connected to a
6
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
garden hose," with Attar's pressure-wash system, in order "to filter the
fluid." Answer 7. Appellant argues that the rejection is in error:
[T]he reason [that Appellant] include[s] a filter in the portable
washing device of the present invention is to prevent impurities
from reaching the container. This is in conjunction with
reversing the operating mode of the motor in the portable washer
and using the sprayer as a suction inlet to refill the container by
way of the flexible tube that extends from the pump to the
spraying pistol.
Appeal Br. 26-27. Appellant continues: "[b]ecause the reservoir in Attar is
filled through [ tank water supply] fitting 24 rather than through [high-
pressure outlet] hose 50, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to include [Cooper's] filter in hose 50." Id. at 27.
Appellant persuades us that the Examiner errs. Although the
Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to use a filter in Attar to
filter water, the Examiner gives no rational reason as to why one would be
motivated to filter water in Attar's output hose that is not used also "as a
suction inlet to refill the container" as occurs with Appellant's device (id.
at 27). In Attar, this water would already have been received and held in
reservoir 20, and pressurized by pump 30, for delivery through nozzle 60.
See, e.g., Attar ,r 29. The Examiner does not explain why one of ordinary
skill would filter water already received in reservoir 20 and pumped
downstream of pump 30. Thus, for these reasons, we do not sustain
claim 25's obviousness rejection.
7
Appeal2017-010270
Application 14/162,234
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-20, and22-27.
REVERSED
8