Ex Parte DENZLER

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2014

12891431 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OLIVER DENZLER
____________________

Appeal 2012-009023
Application 12/891,431
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was
held on November 4, 2014.
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a plumbing spout device. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
A low-profile plumbing spout device (4) having an upstream
portion and a downstream portion comprising a mounting
sleeve (7) having a generally cylindrical configuration, with
external threads that matingly engage internal threads of a
plumbing spout (3), the mounting sleeve (7) comprising a flow-
rectifying device (5) integral with the mounting sleeve (7) at an
Appeal 2012-009023
Application 12/891,431

2
outlet end of the plumbing spout device (4) at the downstream
portion.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Aghnides
Grether
US 4,534,513
US 6,126,093
Aug. 13, 1985
Oct. 3, 2000

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Aghnides. Ans. 4.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aghnides. Ans. 6.
Claims 7 and 10–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aghnides and Grether. Ans. 7.

OPINION
The term “outlet” has been used consistently throughout the
Specification to refer to the location where water exits the spout. See, e.g.,
Spec. 6, 8, 11; Figs. 1, 3, 5. The Examiner has not provided any evidence to
demonstrate that Appellant’s usage in the Specification is inconsistent with
the ordinary meaning of the term. The record before us lacks sufficient
evidence or reasoning to demonstrate why, despite Appellant’s usage in the
Specification and the ordinary meaning of the term, one skilled in the art
would attribute a different meaning to the term “outlet” when construing the
claims. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those
Appeal 2012-009023
Application 12/891,431

3
skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Here, the Examiner has not established that the interpretation of
the claim term “outlet end” as an “arbitrary” designation (Ans. 10) is
consistent with the interpretation that one skilled in the plumbing arts would
reach, when the claims are read in light of the Specification. As all the
rejections before us are premised upon this unreasonably broad claim
construction, these rejections cannot be sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

Klh