Ex Parte SamuelssonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201712523889 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/523,889 11/24/2009 Kennerth Samuelsson 01560004US 4035 62008 7590 10/02/2017 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC 345 South Patrick Street ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2017 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): patent @ maierandmaier. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNERTH SAMUELS SON Appeal 2015-002692 Application 12/523,889 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kennerth Samuelsson (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-002692 Application 12/523,889 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a nozzle mechanism. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A nozzle mechanism, which is configured to be connected to an extinguisher system comprising: a pipe coupling to be connected in the extinguisher system, said pipe coupling having a coupling piece, a coupling sleeve attached to the coupling piece, and a mist-spraying nozzle, which is attached to the coupling piece by the coupling sleeve, wherein the nozzle is formed monolithically in one piece with a sealing means, which has a frustoconical sealing member, which is pressed into the coupling piece by the coupling sleeve. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bideker (US 904,673, issued Nov. 24, 1908) in view of any one of Freeman (US 2,302,021, issued Nov. 17, 1942), Ivy (US 2007/0181712 Al, published Aug. 9, 2007), or Badberg (US 2,993,650, issued July 25, 1961), and further in view of either McDonald (US 2005/0279852 Al, published Dec. 22, 2005) or Jemigan (US 2008/0191066 Al, published Aug. 14, 2008). ANALYSIS Appellant argues the claims that are subject to this rejection as a group, and does not present any arguments for the separate patentability of any of the claims. Appeal Br. 3—8. We take claim 1 as representative of the group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. 2 Appeal 2015-002692 Application 12/523,889 The Examiner finds that Bideker discloses the claimed nozzle mechanism, with the exception that the nozzle is not mist-spraying, and with the exception that the nozzle employs a packing element, and, thus, is not formed monolithically in one piece with a sealing means. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner points to Freeman, Ivy, and Badberg as teaching nozzles that are of a mist-spraying type that are useful in firefighting, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Bideker’s nozzle to be a mist-spraying one in order to produce fog as an alternative means by which to combat fire. Id. The Examiner relies on McDonald and Jemigan as teaching nozzle assemblies that employ a metal-to-metal seal requiring no packing, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Bideker by eliminating the packing and relying on a metal-to-metal seal, so as to eliminate an additional part that might come dislodged, and to save on costs. Id. at 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Bideker in view of Freeman, Ivy, or Badberg, is improper, in that such modification would render Bideker unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and/or change the basic principle of operation of Bideker. Appeal Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 3—5. Appellant maintains that the intended purpose for the Bideker nozzle is to direct a stream of water at a particular angle and direction relative to the line of the fire hose. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, modifying the Bideker nozzle to be of a mist-spraying type would completely destroy the ability of the Bideker nozzle to throw a stream of water at different angles to the line of the fire hose, to places where water cannot be thrown by an ordinary fire hose. Id. Although not explicitly stated in Bideker, it is reasonable to infer that fire hoses having nozzles that direct water along the same axis or line as the 3 Appeal 2015-002692 Application 12/523,889 hose is oriented were known. Bideker states that its advance was to provide a nozzle tip that is rotatable through 180 degrees when placed on a surface, so that water can be directed in numerous other directions not previously possible with a forward-facing nozzle tip. Bideker, p. 1,11. 9—10 (“the object is to produce tips which will direct the water in any direction”). The Examiner’s proposed modification does not destroy the ability of the Bideker nozzle to rotate in the manner intended in the disclosed construction. As such, the modification would not be seen as rendering the nozzle unsuitable for its intended purpose. Appellant’s somewhat related argument that modifying the tip of Bideker would completely destroy the ability of the Bideker nozzle to throw a stream of water is misplaced as well. The Bideker advance is disclosed to be in the provision of a rotatable nozzle. Id. This aspect of Bideker is retained, not destroyed, in the proposed modification. To the extent that the modified nozzle will direct a misted water spray in a plurality of directions instead of directing a stream of water, this simply amounts to providing an alternative means by which to combat fire, as pointed out by the Examiner. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that there is no evidence in the record that provides motivation to modify the Bideker nozzle to exclude packing, in view of McDonald or Jemigan. Appeal Br. 7—8. Appellant maintains that “Bideker does not suggest that further improvement is desired, nor that another feature should be added to further improve the nozzle for Bideker’s purpose.” Id. Appellant characterizes the Examiner’s position as improperly picking and choosing features from different references without regard to the teachings of the references as a whole. Id. at 8. 4 Appeal 2015-002692 Application 12/523,889 The arguments are not indicative of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant does not contest the reason provided by the Examiner to apply the metal-to-metal fluid seal teachings of McDonald or Jemigan to Bideker. See id. at 7—8. We find the reason articulated, i.e., “so as to not require an additional part that can be dislodged or lost and incurs more cost,” to be supported by rational underpinnings. Final Act. 3. Further, that Bideker does not suggest possible further improvements is not probative on the question of patentability. The fact that the prior art may already perform adequately does not preclude a skilled artisan from seeking to improve upon it. See Dystar Textilfarben GmBH & Co, v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common- sensical). In many, if not most, obviousness rejections, the suggestion of possible improvement comes not from the reference disclosing the device proposed to be modified, but instead from an additional reference or references, or from the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention under examination (and not at the time of the cited reference). Accordingly, none of Appellant’s arguments apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Bideker in view of any of Freeman, Ivy, and Badberg, and further in view of McDonald or Jemigan. The rejection of claim 1 is therefore sustained. Claims 2—6 fall with claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 5 Appeal 2015-002692 Application 12/523,889 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation