PaPa Squat Port A Pot, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2020

15251117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2020)

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.
15/251,117 08/30/2016 Kirk Duffee Duffee 0100 1481
27981 7590 03/13/2020
WENDY W. KOBA
PO BOX 556
SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081
EXAMINER
SKUBINNA, CHRISTINE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2020 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):
wendykoba@usa.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRK DUFFEE and KEVIN GENEVRO
Appeal 2019-005112
Application 15/251,117
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14.1 See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies PaPa Squat Port A Pot LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005112
Application 15/251,117

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a seat for portable toilet with tank-blocking
shutter. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 A portable toilet shutter apparatus comprising:
a flange assembly for mounting the shutter apparatus in
place within an opening of a portable toilet;
an inverted-V shaped shutter suspended underneath the
flange assembly so as to block a view of an underlying tank;
and
a shutter support assembly connected between the flange
assembly and the inverted-V shaped shutter for supporting the
inverted-V shaped shutter in its suspended position underneath
the opening of the portable toilet, wherein the inverted-V
shaped shutter is connected to the shutter support assembly in a
manner where the shutter remains free to swing while attached
to the support assembly.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Carlson et al.
(“Carlson”)
US 3,566,418 May 2, 1971
Lagstrom US 3,599,582 Aug. 17, 1971
Rassbach et al.
(“Rassbach”)
US 3,837,012 Sept. 24, 1974

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Carlson, Rassbach, and Lagstrom. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-005112
Application 15/251,117

3
OPINION
Claim 1: obviousness
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner determined Carlson
taught the flange assembly and the support assembly, but failed to teach the
inverted-V shaped shutter and the shutter remains free to swing while
attached to the support assembly. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner determined
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Carlson to include
the inverted-V shaped shutter of Rassbach “for the purpose of having a
shutter that will automatically rotate as waste is deposited on the shutter,”
and to include the free swing shutter feature of Lagstrom “for the purpose of
simplifying the structure, making the device cheaper to manufacture.” Final
Act. 3–4.
As Appellant points out, however, Lagstrom requires a shield 38 to be
pulled out to allow the hinged plate 36 to drop and swing. App. Br. 8. This
feature of Lagstrom is in contrast to the inverted-V shaped shutter that
“remains free to swing while attached to the support assembly” of
Appellant’s invention. App. Br. 8. The Examiner explains that “the swing
requires a force acting on the shutter. When the shield is withdrawn, the
force of gravity acts on the hinged plate 36, dropping the plate and then the
plate is free to swing back.” Ans. 4. However, the Examiner’s reasoning is
not persuasive. The shutter does not remain free to swing while “attached to
the support assembly” if a shield is required to be withdrawn to activate the
swing. Spec. ¶ 7. The shutter’s freedom is constrained by the shield 38 of
Lagstrom. Hence, the shutter is not free. Therefore, Lagstrom does not teach
a shutter that “remains free to swing while attached to the support
assembly.” App. Br. 8.
Appeal 2019-005112
Application 15/251,117

4
Accordingly, the Examiner’s obviousness rejections cannot be
sustained on the record before us.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–8,
11–14
103 Carlson, Rassbach,
Lagstrom
1, 4–8,
11–14

REVERSED