Ex Parte Reichert et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 201613298036 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/298,036 11/16/2011 97149 7590 01/13/2016 Maschoff Brennan 1389 Center Drive, Suite 300 Park City, UT 84098 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gabriel G. REICHERT 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. Plll8.10001US04 7187 EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2016 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@mabr.com info@mabr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GABRIEL G. REICHERT, LUCAS C. REICHERT, and TOBY HAZELBAKER Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Gabriel G. Reichert et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. 1 Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies the real party in interest as Pressure Products, Inc. Br. 4. Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and recites: 1. A flexible fluid delivery system comprising: a fluid bladder having a first inlet and a first outlet, the fluid bladder configured to contain liquid; an inflatable component capable of being pressurized by inflation and having a second inlet, the inflatable component being formed adjacent to the fluid bladder, such that the fluid bladder and the inflatable component are integrated to form a pressurized fluid reservoir, the fluid bladder having a first exterior wall and the component having a second exterior wall with a common interior wall being shared between the fluid bladder and the inflatable component; a pump associated with the second inlet of the inflatable component, the pump being configured to inflate the inflatable component of the pressurized fluid reservoir; and a valve operatively coupled to the first outlet of the fluid bladder, the valve being capable of releasing the liquid contained in the fluid bladder of the pressurized fluid reservoir. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Valeriana (US 2006/0243765 Al, published Nov. 2, 2006). 2. Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Valeriana and Bowman (US 5,511,568, issued Apr. 30, 1996). ANALYSIS Priority Appellants' application ("present application") has a filing date of November 16, 2011. The present application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/367,241, filed August 1, 2006, which is a continuation- 2 Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/497,672, filed on August 1, 2006, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/026,224, filed on January 3, 2005, and U.S. Patent Application No. 11/026,225, also filed on January 3, 2005. 2 Appellants assert the claims of the present application are entitled to the benefit of the January 3, 2005, filing date of Reichert '862 and '863. Br. 14. Rejection 1 Claims 1, 12, and 17 Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a fluid bladder having a first inlet and a first outlet." (Emphasis added). The Examiner determines Reichert '862 and '863 do not disclose "a first inlet" and "a common interior wall," as claimed. Final Act. 3--4. Consequently, the Examiner determines Appellants' application is not entitled to the benefit of the January 3, 2005, filing date of Reichert '862 and '863. Id. As Valeriana has an earlier filing date of April 27, 2005, the Examiner also determines Valeriana qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Id. Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that Valeriana discloses all limitations of claims 1, 12, and 17. Br. 14--21; see also Final Act. 2. Instead, Appellants contend Reichert '862 and '863 disclose the claimed "first inlet" and "common interior wall," and, consequently, the present application is entitled to the benefit of the January 3, 2005, filing date of Reichert '862 and '863. Br. 18-20. Thus, Appellants contend Valeriana does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Id. at 14. 2 The '224 application published as U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0144862 Al on July 6, 2006 ("Reichert '862"), and the '225 application published as U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0144863 Al on July 6, 2006 ("Reichert '863 "). 3 Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 Under 35 U.S.C. § 120: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States . . . which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application[]. (Emphasis added). See also, Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, "the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (citations omitted). To have "possession," "the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed." Id. "A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later- claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations." See Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158. Regarding the claimed "first inlet," Appellants indicate paragraph [0008] of Reichert '862 describes "'a bladder' which 'can be filled with fluid,"' and assert one skilled in the art would understand this disclosure to mean the bladder "[has] an inlet, entrance, chamber or other means for filling or housing the fluid." Br. 18. Appellants also assert, "it would be impossible to fill the bladder without some sort of inlet which is capable of receiving the fluid." Id. 4 Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 We agree with the Examiner that Reichert '862 and '863 do not disclose a fluid bladder that has both a "first inlet" for inputting fluid and a separate "first outlet" for outputting fluid. The descriptions of the invention in Reichert '862 and '863 disclose a bladder with only a single port with access to the collapsible fluid container. See Reichert '862 i-fi-18-9, 19 and Figs. 2-3; Reichert '863 i-f 19 and Figs. 2-3. Appellants do not explain persuasively why the disclosed bladder that "can be filled with fluid" must also have, in addition to the single port disclosed, "some sort of inlet which is capable of receiving the fluid." Br. 18. Reichert '862 is silent about how the bladder "can be filled with fluid." In addition, the drawings in Reichert '862 do not show both a separate inlet and outlet in fluid container 2. Appellants do not establish it is not possible to fill the fluid bladder in some other way than via "some sort of inlet" that is separate from the disclosed port. Indeed, the Examiner describes an exemplary other way, finding "the fluid bladder can be built by a form, fill and seal method where the bladder would be a single use disposable dispenser that is filled and sealed without any fluid inlet." Final Act. 3. Consistent with this finding, Reichert '862 does not indicate the bladder "can be filled with fluid" more than once. Nor does Reichert '862 indicate the disclosed single port is not capable of being used to fill the bladder with fluid. But even if the single port could be used as an "inlet" in that manner, that single port would then function as both a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet and still fail to provide support for the claimed, distinct, "first inlet" and "first outlet." See Spec. i127 (describing inlet 22 and outlet 36); Fig. 1. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the disclosure in Reichert '862 that one of the bladders "can be filled with fluid" does not establish this bladder must also have "some sort of inlet which is 5 Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 capable of receiving the fluid" in addition to the port disclosed by Reichert '862 and '863. Appellants also indicate Reichert '862 and '863 both cite "Edison" in the Background of Invention section. We note U.S. Patent No. 5,060,833 to Edison et al. is described at paragraph 3 of Reichert '862 and '863. Appellants reproduce Figure 3 of Edison. Br. 19. Figure 3 shows a collapsible water container 36 with a filler neck 76. See also, Edison, col. 4, 11. 32-35. Appellants contend, "Fig. 3 of Edison [] clearly illustrates a filler neck (76) which serves as an inlet for filling the collapsible fluid container (36)." Br. 18. Paragraph 3 of each of Reichert '862 and '863 has the same description. These paragraphs describe "a collapsible water container" having a mouthpiece attached to the container by a length of tubing. These paragraphs do not indicate the container has an inlet, or refer to the filler neck shown in Figure 3 of Edison. The Examiner notes correctly that Edison is not incorporated by reference in either of Reichert '862 and '863. Id. at 8-9. The fact that Edison's collapsible water container 36 includes a filler neck 76 does not provide a basis for Appellants to effectively import this particular element of Edison's invention into Reichert '862 or Reichert '863 to create a disclosure that may adequately support claim 1 in the present application. 3 We determine Reichert '862 and '863 do not meet the written description requirement relative to claim 1 of the present application. 3 Because we determine Reichert '862 and '863 do not provide support for the claimed "first inlet" and "first outlet" recited in claim 1, we need not consider this same issue for the claimed "common interior wall." 6 Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of Reichert '862 and '863 ',and thus, Valeriana qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the Examiner's finding that Valeriana discloses all limitations of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Valeriana. Similar to claim 1, claim 12 recites "a bladder portion configured to contain a liquid and having a first inlet capable of receiving the liquid and an outlet capable of dispensing the liquid," and claim 17 recites "a fluid bladder held within the flexible carrier [and] the fluid bladder having a first inlet and a first outlet, the fluid bladder configured to contain liquid." We also sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 17 as anticipated by Valeriana for reasons similar to those discussed for claim 1. Claims 2-10, 13-15, and 18-20 Claims 2-10, 13-15, and 18-20 depend from claim 1, 12, or 17. For these dependent claims, Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings for Valeriana. Br. 20. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2-10, 13-15, and 18-20 as anticipated by Valeriana. Rejection 2 For claims 11 and 16, Appellants contend Bowman fails to cure the deficiencies of Valeriana. Br. 20. As Appellants do not apprise us of any deficiencies in Valeriana, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 16 as unpatentable over Valeriana and Bowman. 7 Appeal2013-010952 Application 13/298,036 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. 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 rvb 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation