DMT Solutions Global Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019004374 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
15/292,418 10/13/2016 Craig D. Richard DMT-312/00US 34930/819 1099
21710 7590 06/02/2020
BROWN RUDNICK LLP
ONE FINANCIAL CENTER
BOSTON, MA 02111
EXAMINER
KURPLE, KARL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
ip@brownrudnick.com
usactions@brownrudnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG D. RICHARD
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, 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 1–5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pitney Bowes
Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 11, 2018, at 2.
2 This Decision also refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 13,
2016, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated September 5, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to an improved moisture applicator brush for an
envelope sealing system. Spec. 1, Title. Claim 1, reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A moistening brush assembly for moistening opened
envelope flaps that are transported below a moistening brush
so that adhesive on an interior side of the envelope flaps
comes into contact with a lower end of the moistening brush,
the moistening brush comprising:
bristles that are enclosed in a housing at an upper end of
the bristles, and that are exposed at a lower end of the
bristles, the bristles being supported in the housing at an
inclined angle such that a liquid flows from the upper end to
the lower end; and
wherein the housing includes a liquid supply opening
located on a first side of the housing along a length of the
bristles and proximal to the upper end of the bristles, the
liquid supply opening being coupled to a liquid supply
fitting that receives the liquid from a liquid supply, the
housing further comprising a horizontal channel opening
contiguous with the liquid supply opening, the horizontal
channel opening extending across a majority of a width of
the first side of the housing and the bristles of the
moistening brush, and whereby the liquid entering the
horizontal channel opening from the liquid supply opening
is distributed evenly across the width of the bristles.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

3
Name Reference Date
Stefely US 3,304,573 Feb. 21, 1967
Auerbach US 4,643,123 Feb. 17, 1987
Beckstrom US 2005/0067108 Mar. 31, 2005
Sussmeier US 2011/0084710 Apr. 14, 2011

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections:
1. Claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stefely in
view of Beckstrom;3
2. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stefely in
view of Beckstrom, and further in view of Sussmeier; and
3. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stefely in
view of Beckstrom, and further in view of Auerbach.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the

3 We note that the Examiner’s statement of this rejection indicates that these
claims are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, because the
effective filing date of this application is after the March 16, 2013 effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

4
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections.
Rejection 1: Obviousness over Stefely and Beckstrom
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stefely in view of Beckstrom. A complete statement of
the rejection is set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, pages 3–6, paragraph 12.
Appellant first contends that Beckstrom is of no particular relevance
to the features of claim 1 without any additional argument, explanation, or
comment. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant then acknowledges that Stefely is more
relevant in that it teaches a system for providing liquid to a brush, but
contends that Stefely fails to describe the arrangement of the liquid supply
opening in the housing, or of the channel. Id. Next, Appellant reproduces
what is described as “the relevant portion of claim 1” which is the final
“wherein” clause of claim 1 with emphasis added. Id. at 5–6. Lastly,
Appellant states that the emphasized features in this “wherein” clause “are
not disclosed or suggested by the asserted references, without any additional
argument, explanation, or comment. Id. at 6.
Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the Examiner
cites to Stefely, Figures 1, 2, 5, and 6, as well as column 5, lines 7–19, for a
description of the arrangement of the liquid supply opening and channel in
the housing. Ans. 3–4, 9–10. Appellant fails to respond to or otherwise
identify error in the Examiner’s findings. Appellant’s other “arguments,” at
best, amount to no more than a recitation of the limitations of the “wherein”
clause of claim 1 and a generic denial that the applied references teach or
suggest the limitations of this clause. Appellants’ unexplained arguments
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

5
provide no basis to reject the Examiner’s findings on those points. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
distinctions over the prior art.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–4 over Stefely and Beckstrom.
Rejections 2 and 3: Obviousness over Stefely, Beckstrom, and either
Sussmeier or Auerbach
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the lower end
of the bristles is positioned over a cutout gap in a deck surface such that the
bristles do not rest on any solid surface.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Stefely in view of Beckstrom, and further in view of Sussmeier or
Auerbach. A complete statement of these rejections is set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer, pages 6–8, paragraphs 13 and 14.
Appellant argues that Sussmeier and Auerbach fail to cure the
deficiencies with regard to Stefely and Beckstrom. Appeal Br. 6. However,
as discussed above, Appellant fails to identify any deficiencies in the
Examiner’s combination of Stefely and Beckstrom.
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

6
Appellant contends that Sussmeier fails to disclose or suggest the
features of claim 5 because Sussmeier describes a brush that is positioned
under envelopes that pass over the brush. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts
that Sussmeier’s brush is located in a tank of water, with its bristles pointing
upwards and, therefore, fails to teach bristles “over a cutout gap.” Id.
Appellant also contends that although showing a suspended brush that does
not rest on a solid surface, Auerbach fails to teach a cutout gap in a deck
surface. Id.
Initially, we note that Beckstrom teaches an orientation of the bristles
of an envelope moistening brush such that the lower end of the bristles is
positioned over a cutout gap in a deck surface. See Beckstrom, Fig. 3.
Although Beckstrom rests the lower end of the bristles on a solid surface
within the cutout gap (i.e., fluid transfer member 70), when combined with
Stefely, one of ordinary skill in the art would have removed fluid transfer
member 70 as unnecessary since Stefely delivers fluid to the brush bristles
through tube 95 within bristle housing 30 and outlet 104. As such, the
combination of Stefely and Beckstrom results in the lower end of Stefely’s
bristles being positioned over a cutout gap in a deck surface such that the
bristles do not rest on any solid surface. Therefore, the Examiner’s reliance
on Sussmeier or Auerbach is unnecessary.
As Appellant asserts, Sussmeier teaches the positioning of the brush
in the tank of water to deliver fluid to the bristles. However, when combined
with Stefely, the ordinary artisan would have understood that there is no
need to position the brush within the tank of water because Stefely delivers
fluid to the brush bristles through the housing. Since Beckstrom teaches the
positioning of the brush over a cutout gap and Stefely delivers fluid to the
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

7
brush bristles, a combination of Stefely, Beckstrom, and Sussmeier similarly
results in the lower end of Stefely’s bristles being positioned over a cutout
gap in a deck surface such that the bristles do not rest on any solid surface.
Therefore, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
combination of Stefely, Beckstrom, and Sussmeier as applied to claim 5.
With regard to Auerbach, the Examiner finds that opening 22 in the
upper surface of Auerbach’s device reads on the cutout gap in the deck
surface. Ans. 8, 11. Appellant fails to challenge or otherwise address this
finding. Therefore, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s combination of Stefely, Beckstrom, and Auerbach as applied to
claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claim 5 over Stefely and Beckstrom, and further in view of either Sussmeier
or Auerbach.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 1–4
as unpatentable over Stefely in view of Beckstrom, and claim 5 as
unpatentable adding either Sussmeier or Auerbach, is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 103 Stefely, Beckstrom 1–4
5 103 Stefely, Beckstrom,
Sussmeier
5
5 103 Stefely, Beckstrom,
Auerbach
5
Appeal 2019-004374
Application 15/292,418

8
Overall
Outcome
1–5

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED