Ex Parte Bell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

12932803 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/932,803 03/07/2011
34678 7590 06/22/2016
NORMAN E. LEHRER, P.C.
1205 NORTH KINGS HIGHWAY
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David W. Bell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
7047 4333
EXAMINER
KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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 DAVID W. BELL
Appeal2014-006459
Application 12/932,803
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David W. Bell (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Christopher (US 2009/0133680 Al, pub. May 28, 2009)
in view of either Kostiopoulos (US 6,467 ,4 73 B 1, iss. Oct. 22, 2002) or
Harvey (US 5,954,042, iss. Sept. 21, 1999), and further in view of one of
Rice (US 2003/0221684 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2003), Douglas
(US 2009/0025701 Al, pub. Jan. 29, 2009), and Galinson (US
2011/0083654 Al, pub. Apr. 14, 2011). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-006459
Application 12/932,803
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A paintball loader comprising:
a housing including a hopper for holding a supply of
paintballs therein;
said housing further including a downwardly extending
outlet tube connected to said hopper and being adapted to be
connected to the inlet tube of a paintball gun;
an agitator within said hopper capable of directing
paintballs within said hopper toward said outlet tube so that said
paintballs may pass through said outlet tube downwardly and
into said inlet tube of said paintball gun;
electric motor means carried by said housing and
connected to said agitator for moving said agitator;
sensing means located at least partially within said outlet
tube for sensing the movement of paintballs through said outlet
tube;
said sensing means including a rotatable wheel having a
plurality of angularly spaced apart radially extending members,
said rotatable \vheel being rotatably mounted about a horizontal
axis and being positioned relative to said outlet tube such that
paintballs passing downwardly through said outlet tube engage
said radially extending members and cause said wheel to rotate,
said wheel being rotated by the weight of said paintballs
engaging the same;
said sensing means further including a plurality of
magnets carried by said wheel and a Hall effect magnetic sensor
carried by said housing and located so as to sense the movement
of one of said magnets when said wheel is rotated by one of said
paintballs passing downwardly through said outlet tube, and
electronic circuit means associated with said magnetic
sensor for activating said electric motor means in response to
signals from said magnetic sensor.
2
Appeal2014-006459
Application 12/932,803
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 requires, in pertinent part,
a rotatable wheel being rotatably mounted about a horizontal axis
and being positioned relative to said outlet tube such that
paintballs passing downwardly through said outlet tube engage
said radially extending members and cause said wheel to rotate,
said wheel being rotated by the weight of said paintballs
engaging the same.
Br. 9, Claims App.
The Examiner found that Christopher discloses a paintball loader
comprising, inter alia, a sensing means including a rotatable wheel rotatably
mounted relative to an outlet tube. Final Act. 2-3 (relying on rotatable plate
230 as the claimed rotatable wheel). The Examiner found that Christopher
does not disclose that the rotatable wheel is mounted about a horizontal axis
relative to the outlet tube, and relied on either Kostiopoulos or Harvey for
teaching such an arrangement. Id. at 4 (citing Kostiopoulos, Figs. 7-14, 17;
Harvey, Fig. 5). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to mount
Christopher's rotatable wheel in a horizontal manner, according to the
teachings of Kostiopoulos or Harvey, as merely the
Id.
use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the
same way (using [a] rotatable wheel) to obtain the predictable
result[] of forming a paintball loader having sensing means
including a rotatable [wheel] configured to transform paintballs
to be fired one at a time to avoid jamming and malfunction.
Notably, the Examiner did not articulate, on the record before us, any
findings or reasoning with respect to the requirement in claim 1 that the
rotatable wheel be rotated by the weight of paintballs passing downwardly
3
Appeal2014-006459
Application 12/932,803
through the outlet tube. Appellant argues, and we agree, that neither
Kostiopoulos nor Harvey discloses a wheel rotated by the weight of
paintballs passing downwardly through the outlet tube because each
reference discloses a rotatable wheel driven by a motor. Br. 5---6 (citing
Kostiopoulos, col. 13, 11. 27-30; Harvey, col. 5, 11. 43--44). Further, the
Examiner did not rely on Rice, Douglas, or Galinson for any teaching that
would make up for the deficiency in the Examiner's combination of
Christopher, Kostiopoulos, and Harvey. See Final Act. 4--5.
For the above reasons, the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the subject matter of claim l, which requires "that
paintballs passing downwardly through said outlet tube engage said radially
extending members and cause said wheel to rotate, said wheel being rotated
by the weight of said paintballs engaging the same." Br. 9, Claims App.
(emphasis added). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Christopher in view
of either Kostiopoulos or Harvey, and further in view of one of Rice,
Douglas, and Galinson.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 is reversed.
REVERSED
4