Ex Parte Claunch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13861747 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/861,747 04/12/2013
92269 7590 07/05/2016
Global Intellectual Property Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 382
Swedesboro, NJ 08085
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Claunch
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.
RC216473 5675
EXAMINER
SKUBINNA, CHRISTINE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
info@globalipa.com
notifications@globalipa.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN WORTH CLAUNCH and ROBERT CLAUNCH
Appeal 2016-005352
Application 13/861, 7 4 7
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John Worth Claunch and Robert Claunch (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, and
8-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1. A sewage treatment system for separating and pre-
treating waste, comprising:
a separating tank for receiving toilet waste;
Appeal 2016-005352
Application 13/861,747
said separating tank having a non-aqueous liquid flush
medium having a specific gravity less than water;
said separating tank further comprising a toilet bowl, a
flush medium circulation pump, a flush medium and waste
divider wall, and a waste aerator means;
said divider wall for dividing said separating tank into a
flush medium side and a waste side,
wherein waste is received through said toilet bowl on said
flush medium side,
whereafter said waste sinks below said flush medium and
is circulated through apertures in said divider wall to said waste
side;
said waste aerator means located within said waste side for
aerating said waste;
wherein said waste aerator means drives said waste over a
dam wall disposed within said waste side;
said flush medium circulation pump submerged within
said flush medium within said flush medium side for circulating
said flush medium through at least one filter to maintain said
flush medium and depositing said flush medium into said toilet
bowl thereafter;
a waste outlet port along side waste side to allow waste to
exit said separating tank for further processing or collection.
THE REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Claunch (US 3,974,528; iss. Aug. 17, 1976) and
TheConstructOnline.com (http://www.theconstructonline.com/2012/ 12/23/
pros-of-using-submersible-pumps/[! 0/15/2013 5:52:36 PM]).
1 The Examiner's rejections of claims 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
and second paragraphs, for failing to comply with the written description
and enablement requirements are withdrawn. Ans. 2; Final Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal 2016-005352
Application 13/861,747
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Claunch, TheConstructOnline, and Dorsey (US 8,167,587 B2; iss. May 1,
2012).
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Claunch, TheConstructOnline, and Anttalainen (US
6,581,336 B2; iss. June 24, 2003).
Claims 12, 13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Claunch, TheConstructOnline, and DeGraw (US
4,433,443; iss. Feb. 28, 1984).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Claunch, TheConstructOnline, DeGraw, and Dorsey.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Claunch, TheConstructOnline, DeGraw, and Anttalainen.
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9- Obviousness over Claunch and
TheConstructOnline. com
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Claunch's air line 48 in conduit 49, waste tank aerator 66, air pump, and the
outlets for air line 48 and tank aerator 66 correspond to the claimed aerator
means, which drives waste over Claunch's weir (or dam wall) 58, as
claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing Claunch, col. 4, 11. 49-51). The Examiner
explains that "[w]ithout [Claunch's] aerator means pumping the air into the
waste[,] the waste would not move from the bottom of [tank 36] and would
not accumulate in [waste tank 50] enough to flow over [dam wall 58]." Ans.
3. The Examiner determines that Claunch's "aerator means therefore is the
means, while perhaps somewhat indirectly, that drives the waste over the
3
Appeal 2016-005352
Application 13/861,747
wall ... [and] by which the waste is set in motion, imparting a physical
effect and ultimately propel[ing the waste] over the dam wall." Id.
Appellants argue that in Claunch, "the waste simply 'overflows from
tank 50 at weir outlet means 58 when tank 50 is full or at any desired level."'
Br. 17-18 (citing Claunch, col. 4, 11. 56---60, 63---65). Appellants further
argue that because aerator line 66 is arranged transverse to the flow path of
the waste across tank 50 (and over weir 58) to provide turbulence in the
tank, which prevents dead spots in the flow of waste across the tank, aerator
line 66 "[does] not propel[] ... or set[] the waste in motion such that it is
driven over the weir." Id. at 18 (citing Claunch, col. 6, 11. 11-14).
Claunch discloses that "waste 39 settles to the bottom part of
separation tank 36" and "[f]rom there it is transferred [to waste settling tank
50], preferably in a continuous recirculation pattern, by ... air lift pump
means formed by air line 48 and conduit 49." Claunch, col. 4, 11. 34--42, Fig.
1. Claunch further discloses that the waste is recirculated from tank 50 back
to tank 36 via conduit 52. Id. at 11. 43--49. Claunch explains that "[a]s the
waste is transferred around this recirculating loop it is mixed, macerated,
oxygenated and aerobically digested by the air stream" and that "[t]he waste
tends to form into a partially digested sludge." Id. at 11. 53-57. Claunch
discloses that "[t]he waste over-flows from tank 50 at weir outlet means 58
when tank 50 is full or at any desired level thereby controlling the volume of
waste retained in separating tank 36 and waste settling tank 50." Id. at 11.
57---61.
In view of the teachings in Claunch, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in finding that Claunch's conduits 49, 52, air line 48, and air
lift pump means drive the waste over weir 58 (or a dam wall), as required by
4
Appeal 2016-005352
Application 13/861,747
claim 1. Although Claunch discloses using aerator means to set the waste in
motion by circulating the waste from tank 3 6 to tank 50 and back again, as
described supra, the "recirculating path" disclosed in Claunch is not
described as being in the direction of weir 5 8 or for the purpose of driving
the waste over weir 58. Rather, as discussed supra, Claunch discloses that
the waste flows over weir 58 into tank 60 upon reaching a certain level in
tank 50.
Claunch further discloses, with respect to waste settling tank aerator
66, that "[ t ]he arrangement of aerator lines 66a, transverse to the flow path
across tank 50, is believed to provide a turbulence in the tank which further
prevents dead spots in the flow across the tank." Claunch, col. 5, 11. 3--4,
col. 6, 11. 11-14. Again, we agree with Appellants that this disclosure in
Claunch falls short of disclosing that aerator line 66 drives the waste over
weir 58 (or a dam wall), as required by claim 1. The transverse arrangement
of aerator lines 66a is parallel, not perpendicular, to weir 58, such that the air
from lines 66a would not drive the waste in the direction of weir 58.
Moreover, Claunch does not describe such turbulence as being responsible
for driving the waste over the weir. As noted supra, Claunch discloses that
the waste flows over weir 58 into tank 60 upon reaching a certain level in
tank 50.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2, 6, 8, and 9 depending therefrom.
Claims 12, 13, and 15-17- Obviousness over Claunch,
TheConstructOnline, and DeGraw
Similar to independent claim 1, independent claim 12 recites, in
relevant part, "wherein said waste aerator means drives said waste over a
5
Appeal 2016-005352
Application 13/861,747
dam wall." Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same
findings in Claunch to reject claim 12 as the Examiner relies upon to reject
claim 1. See Final Act. 6. Thus, for the same reasons stated supra, we also
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12, and claims
13 and 15-1 7 depending therefrom.
Claims 3, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 19- Obviousness over Claunch and
TheConstructOnline, and Dorsey, Anttalainen, and/or DeGraw
Claims 3, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 19 depend from independent claims 1 or
12. The Examiner's reliance on Dorsey, Anttalainen, or DeGraw does not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's finding with respect to Claunch as
applied to claims 1 and 12, as discussed supra, and therefore, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner's decisions to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 8-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6