Ex Parte Weis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201412032150 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPH WEIS and HERMANN GRETHER ____________________ Appeal 2012-007627 Application 12/032,150 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Christoph Weis and Hermann Grether (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on September 23, 2014, with Michael F. Snyder, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellant. We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-007627 Application 12/032,150 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a sanitary outflow armature. Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative: 14. Sanitary outflow armature (2) comprising a liquid guide (3) that opens into a fitting outlet (4), in an area of which a plumbing functional unit is provided, the plumbing functional unit (5) is an insertion cartridge and comprises: a. a jet regulator (12), b. a tube-shaped intermediate holder (6), having an open first upstream end and an open second downstream end, adapted to receive the jet regulator (12) at the first end; the tube-shaped intermediate holder comprising a contoured outer periphery defining a tool engagement surface at the second end, for an insertion/removal tool, and c. a sealing element (11), wherein the insertion cartridge is inserted directly into the outlet from an outflow portion thereof and is held removably therein via the tube-shaped intermediate holder (6) via a threaded or bayonet connection. THE REJECTION Appellants appeal from the rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Aghnides (US 4,534,513, issued Aug. 13, 1985). ANALYSIS The Examiner takes the position that jet forming element 230 of Aghnides corresponds to the claimed “jet regulator (12),” and that tube element 214 corresponds to the claimed “tube-shaped intermediate holder Appeal 2012-007627 Application 12/032,150 3 (6), having an open first upstream end . . . adapted to receive the jet regulator (12) at the first end.” Answer 4. The Examiner acknowledges that these two elements in Aghnides are integral with each other. Answer 6. Appellants argue that, because jet forming element 230 and tubular element 214 are integrally formed, “the first upstream end of Aghnides’ second tubular length is not open and ‘adapted to receive the jet regulator’ therein, but rather is closed and formed [into] one piece with the jet forming means 230.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants maintain that the “claims unambiguously require the tube-shaped intermediate holder to have ‘an open first upstream end’ that is adapted to receive a separate jet regulator,” and that jet forming means 230 of Aghnides “is formed as an integral component with, instead of being received in, the upstream end of the second tubular length 214.” Appeal Br. 14–15. Claim 14 calls for “a tube-shaped intermediate holder (6)” that is “adapted to receive the jet regulator (12) at the first end,” whereas the claim language emphasized by Appellants, directed to the holder having first and second open upstream and downstream ends, respectively, is set off by commas from that limitation. Regardless, the same result, i.e, that Aghnides does not disclose all of the claim features, obtains. The Examiner has not adequately laid out a claim construction analysis that leads to the conclusion that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a construction of an integral tube-shaped holder and jet regulator, as disclosed in Aghnides, falls within the scope of separately recited elements (tube-shaped holder, jet regulator) one of which is “adapted to receive” the other. This latter language connotes to us, in the absence of a Appeal 2012-007627 Application 12/032,150 4 cogent broadest reasonable interpretation analysis, that the breadth of the claim excludes the integral construction disclosed by Aghnides. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 as being anticipated by Aghnides is not sustained. Claims 15-19 depend from claim 14, and the rejection of those claims is also not sustained. Independent claim 20 includes the same limitations discussed above with respect to claim 14, and the rejection of claim 20 is further not sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Aghnides is reversed. REVERSED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation