Nelson Irrigation Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021005073 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 15/953,728 04/16/2018 Sean M. Scott 067510.000002 1946 26127 7590 03/09/2022 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-5086 EXAMINER BOECKMANN, JASON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): ipmail@dykema.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEAN M. SCOTT, RILEY D. GREENWOOD, and CRAIG B. NELSON ____________ Appeal 2021-005073 Application 15/953,728 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14-18, and 21-24.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nelson Irrigation Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 20 are withdrawn, and claims 6 and 19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 19-23 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-005073 Application 15/953,728 2 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 16, 2018 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed February 12, 2021 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 12, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 25, 2021 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed August 24, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to irrigation sprinkler assemblies. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from pages 18-19 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A weighted inverted sprinkler assembly for use with an irrigation drop hose, the weighted inverted sprinkler assembly comprising: a coiled weight formed from a coiled wire, said coiled weight comprising individual windings; a sprinkler assembly coupled to the irrigation drop hose so as to allow fluid flow therethrough; and a coiled weight support structure coupled to said weighted inverted sprinkler assembly, for supporting and positioning said coiled weight on said weighted inverted sprinkler assembly, said coiled weight support structure comprising an elongated tubular core having a weight supporting shoulder extending radially outward from said elongate tubular core, wherein said elongated tubular core of said coiled weight support structure is positioned to be radially aligned within an entire length of the coiled weight, wherein the coiled weight is prevented from moving vertically downward with respect to the coiled weight support structure by having one end of the coiled weight touch the weight supporting shoulder of the coiled weight support structure to prevent the coiled weight from moving vertically downward with respect to the weight supporting shoulder, and Appeal 2021-005073 Application 15/953,728 3 another end of the coiled weight not touching the coiled weight support structure in a manner that restricts vertical movement, so that said coiled weight is not compressed during use of the weighted inverted sprinkler assembly, wherein an end of the elongated tubular core that extends beyond the coiled weight is configured to be coupled to an end of an irrigation drip hose and the coiled weight does not extend beyond the elongated tubular core. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting the claims on appeal: Schuknecht US 2,166,448 July 18, 1939 Sesser US 4,676,438 June 30, 1987 REJECTION Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14-18, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sesser and Schuknecht. ANALYSIS In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sesser discloses a “weighted inverted sprinkler assembly (24, 26) in combination with an irrigation drop hose (22) the weighted inverted sprinkler assembly comprising; a sprinkler assembly (26) coupled to the irrigation drop hose,” but does not disclose a coiled weight and coiled weight support structure as claimed. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Schuknecht teaches, in relevant part, a weight (2) including a weight support structure (15 and 16 combined), the weight comprising: a coiled body (21) comprised of a plurality of individual coil windings (fig[s.] 1-3), said coiled body including at least a plurality of individual coil windings that encircle at least a portion of the Appeal 2021-005073 Application 15/953,728 4 weight support structure (fig 3), the weight support structure comprising an elongated tubular core (15 and 16 combined) having a weight supporting shoulder (22) extending radially outward therefrom, wherein when the coiled body is supported on the weight support structure, the elongated tubular core of the weight support structure is positioned to be radially aligned within and entire length of the coiled body (fig 3). Id. at 3-4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to add the weight and the weight support structure of Schuknecht, to the bottom of the drop hose (22), just upstream of 24, of Sesser, in order to protect the drop hose.” Id. at 4. The Examiner explains that “[t]he end of element 16 of the weight support structure of Schuknecht[] would be connected to the bottom end of the drop hose 22” of Sesser. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Sesser “would provide a flexible portion above the pressure regulator 24 and spray head 26 which could possibly allow the pressure regulator 24, spray head 26 and lower elements to flex out of alignment with the goose neck tube 22.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that “[t]his problem, which could be created solely [by] the Examiner’s modification[,] might support providing the hose guard of Schuknecht . . . as a ‘weight’ in Sesser,” but “it is not a problem that is found in the teachings o[f] Sesser or Schuknecht.” Id. Appellant contends that “[m]odifying the prior art in such a manner to create a problem that does not exist in the prior art, does not support an obviousness modification to address and correct the created problem that did not exist.” Id. The Examiner responds in the Answer that Appellant’s characterization of the proposed combination “is simply not true,” and, instead, Schuknecht’s coil would be “placed around the tube 22 of Sesser[;] Appeal 2021-005073 Application 15/953,728 5 there is no addition of any flexible hose below the tube 22 of Sesser.” Ans. 4. In this regard, it appears that the Examiner no longer relies on Schuknecht’s hose 16 as constituting part of the claimed coiled weight support structure having an elongated tubular core, and, instead, relies solely on Schuknecht’s outer shell 15. See Final Act. 4 (finding that Schuknecht teaches a “weight support structure comprising an elongated tubular core (15 and 16 combined)”). Figure 3 of Schuknecht is reproduced below. Figure 3 of Schuknecht depicts outer shell 15 and hose 16 surrounded by a coiled hose guard 21. Schuknecht, page 2, left column, lines 41-48. As we understand the proposed combination, Schuknecht’s hose 16 is replaced with Sesser’s drop tube 20. Schuknecht’s outer shell 15 extends part of the length of the coiled weight (Schuknecht’s hose guard 21) and Sesser’s tube 22 extends the remainder of the length of the coiled weight. To the extent that outer shell 15 constitutes an elongated tubular core of the coiled weight support structure (see Final Act. 3-4), the Examiner does not show persuasively how outer shell 15 also meets the requirement that the “elongated tubular core of said coiled weight support structure is positioned to be radially aligned within an entire length of the coiled weight,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). In other words, Schuknecht’s Appeal 2021-005073 Application 15/953,728 6 outer shell 15 does not appear to be radially aligned within the entire length of hose guard 21, but, rather, less than half of the length of hose guard 21. Thus, the Examiner has not established the requisite factual basis to support the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or its dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 7, as being unpatentable over Sesser and Schuknecht. Independent claims 10 and 17 contain similar recitations as claim 1, including the elongated tubular core of the weight support structure being radially aligned with an entire length of the coiled body (Appeal Br. 20-23 (Claims App.)), and the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings as for claim 1 (Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 4). Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and 17, or their respective dependent claims 11, 14-16, 18, and 21-24, as being unpatentable over Sesser and Schuknecht. CONCLUSION In summary, Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14-18, 21-24 103 Sesser, Schuknecht 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14-18, 21-24 REVERSED