12817258 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014)

Ex Parte Baziuk

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 2014

12817258 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014)

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. 12/817,258 06/17/2010 Slawko Morris Baziuk 86142-202 ADB 5152 7590 10/29/2014 Mr. Adrian D. Battison Ade & Company Inc. 2157 Henderson Highway Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2G 1P9 CANADA EXAMINER WHATLEY, KATELYN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SLAWKO MORRIS BAZIUK ____________ Appeal 2013-001698 Application 12/817,258 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. BACKGROUND Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a method for cleaning sewer drains using a jet nozzle system which carries collected solids to a discharge point[] for extraction.” Spec. 1:2–3. Appeal 2013-001698 Application 12/817,258 2 Claim 1 is the only independent claim at issue on appeal, and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix (App. Br. 11): 1. A method for cleaning a sewer pipe of collected solid materials comprising: providing access to the pipe at first and second longitudinally spaced locations; providing at the first location a hose system including a hose supply and pulling device for releasing and withdrawing the hose system and a cleaning liquid supply system for supplying cleaning liquid to the hose system; providing at the second location a pulling system including a cable and a device for releasing and pulling in the cable; providing at the second location an extraction system for extracting solid materials drawn to the second location; in a first step at the first location, attaching the hose system to a first jet nozzle head and causing the first jet nozzle head with the hose system attached to move from the first location to the second location by directing the liquid from the first jet nozzle head toward the first location so that the flow of liquid acts to drive the first jet nozzle head along the pipe toward the second location while pulling the hose system along the pipe; in a second step, attaching the cable and withdrawing the hose system to the first location with the cable attached so as to pull the cable to the first location; and in a third step, attaching a second jet nozzle head to the hose system and with the cable and the hose system attached to the second jet nozzle head, pulling the cable back toward the second location to cause the second jet nozzle head to move from the first location to the second location with the hose system pulled behind the second jet nozzle head from the first location while directing the cleaning liquid from the second jet nozzle head toward the second location so that the flow of cleaning liquid acts to drive the solid materials along Appeal 2013-001698 Application 12/817,258 3 the pipe to the second location for extraction at the second location. The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the final rejection of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goss (US 3,321,184, issued May 23, 1967) in view of Clifford (US 4,337,096, issued June 29, 1982) and Nezat (US 6,764,604 B1, issued July 20, 2004).1 App. Br. 3–4. OPINION The Examiner finds that Goss teaches most of the requirements in claim 1, including the second step of moving a cleaning device from a first location to a second location by pulling a cable. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Goss does not teach that the cleaning device is a second jet nozzle head that directs cleaning liquid towards the second location so that the flow of cleaning liquid drives the solid material to the second location for extraction, as required in the third step of claim 1. Id. According to the Examiner, however, “it is known in the art to clean a pipe by towing a nozzle jet unit through the pipe away from the location of a cleaning supply unit, as taught by CLIFFORD.” Id. (citing Clifford, col. 4, ll. 24-35). The Examiner thus concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Goss method by using the nozzle disclosed in Clifford “to allow for clean liquid to be introduced into the pipe.” Id. 1 Appellant does not argue any dependent claim apart from independent claim 1. See App. Br. 4. Accordingly, claims 2–3 will stand or fall together with our analysis of independent claim 1. Appeal 2013-001698 Application 12/817,258 4 Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner’s proposed combination of references does not account for the requirement in claim 1 that the flow of cleaning liquid acts to drive the solid materials along the pipe to the second location. App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, Clifford discloses that water is only directed inwardly and in the backwards direction (i.e., towards the first location), and not towards the second location. Id. at 5 (citing Clifford, col. 4, l. 52). Appellant further argues that Clifford does not disclose waste driven by water jets at all, but rather a system wherein waste is moved by physical contact with parts of the cleaning head. Id. at 6. In the Answer, the Examiner takes the position that Clifford teaches a nozzle with forward jets that supply cleaning fluid at high pressure in the forward direction. Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, “[a] skilled artisan would know that application of high pressure fluid in a forward direction from the cleaning fluid head would drive debris in the piper along the pipe in the forward direction,” and therefore that the disputed limitation is taught by Clifford. Id. After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both Appellant and the Examiner, we reverse the stated rejection. The Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967). The Examiner finds that Clifford, as part of a combination of references, provides factual support for such a conclusion. The portions of Clifford cited by the Examiner (col. 3, ll. 41–60 and col. 4, ll. 24-35), however, fail to establish that Clifford teaches a nozzle with forward jets supplying cleaning fluid in the forward direction, such that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at Appeal 2013-001698 Application 12/817,258 5 the claimed step of using the forward flow of cleaning fluid to drive debris toward the second location. Clifford generally discloses the use of a cleaning head fitted with blades to cut and scrape debris from a drain or pipe when pulled from a first location towards a second location. See Clifford, Abstract. The loosened debris, when mixed with water, forms a slurry that is removed by “plunging means” on the cleaning head as it is pulled back towards the first location. Id. at col. 4, ll. 24–35. Although Clifford discloses that the cleaning device has “water directing means,” including twelve “forward jets,” eight of the forward jets are set at a 45 degree angle to direct debris in a backwards direction (i.e., towards the first location). Id. at col. 3, ll. 42–56. Four of the forward jets are set at a 90 degree angle (id. at col. 3, ll. 56–58), suggesting that the water is sprayed radially, or in a direction that is perpendicular to the path of travel through the pipe. Clifford also teaches that two jets can be located in the end cap 24 (id. at col. 3, ll. 57–58), but does not describe a specific orientation or purpose of those jets. Clifford generally describes that the water jets are part of the “means for wetting the debris 20 in the drain” (id. at col. 2, ll. 10–11) that is meant to be cleaned, and that the water jets spray water to “grease the passage of the [cleaning device] through the drain” (id. at col. 4, ll. 62–64). In view of this disclosure, we agree with Appellant that Clifford does not disclose or suggest using the flow of cleaning liquid to drive the solid materials along the pipe to the second location. Rather, Clifford describes the use of cleaning liquid to drive debris along the pipe in the opposite Appeal 2013-001698 Application 12/817,258 6 direction (i.e., towards the first location), to grease the passage of the cleaning device, and to wet the debris in the drain. The Examiner has not directed us to any other evidence in this record supporting the finding that the prior art teaches directing cleaning liquid from the second jet nozzle head toward the second location so that the flow of cleaning liquid acts to drive the solid materials in the direction of the second location for extraction at the second location.2 In the absence of such evidence, we are not persuaded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the combination of Gross, Clifford, and Nezat. We therefore find the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and erred in rejecting claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED cdc 2 Nezat does not cure this deficiency. Nezat does not disclose jet nozzles, a hose providing cleaning fluid, or directing the flow of cleaning fluid towards a second location to drive solid materials in that direction. App. Br. 7–8; see generally Nezat.