Ex Parte Dow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13156466 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

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.
13/156,466 06/09/2011 Rosie A. Dow BPMDL0038RD (10255U) 5112
27939 7590 09/27/2017
Philip H. Burrus, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
IANNUZZI, PETER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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 ROSIE A. DOW, KENNETH S. CHUA, and
JOHN HENRY KUTSCH
Appeal 2016-007301
Application 13/156,4661
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 15—17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Medline Industries,
Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-007301
Application 13/156,466
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed “invention relates generally to systems and
methods for crushing pills, tablets, and other solid ingestive objects, and
more particularly to a pill crushing device and pouch, and corresponding
methods.” (Spec. 11.)
Claim 15 is the independent claims on appeal. It recites:
15. A pill crushing pouch configured for use with a crushing
device, the pill crushing pouch comprising:
a first layer and a second layer, coupled together to define
an enclosing seam, an insertion aperture, and a receiving pouch;
the enclosing seam defining a piecewise linear boundary
about the receiving pouch; and
the enclosing seam defining a plurality of finger recesses.
REJECTION
Claims 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Engel (US 2007/0297701 Al, pub. Dec. 27, 2007).
ANALYSIS
With regard to the claim element “a first layer and a second layer,
coupled together to define an enclosing seam,” the Examiner finds that
Engel discloses this limitation in paragraph 33 (with specific reference to
elements 24"a and 24”/), and “the vertical seam created in the bonding
process”). (Answer 7.) The Examiner also finds that Engel discloses this
limitation in Figure 1 (with specific reference to seal 12). {Id. at 8—9; see
also Engel 129.)
2
Appeal 2016-007301
Application 13/156,466
Appellants disagree and argue that Engel
fails to teach any enclosing seam that is formed by joining two
layers together and that defines both a piecewise linear boundary
and one or more finger recesses. To the contrary, no structure
whatsoever occurring in the reference defines both finger
recesses and a piecewise linear boundary around a pouch.
(Appeal Br. 10.)
We refer to the Examiner’s annotated versions of Engel’s Figure 1
(Answer 6) and Figure 2C (id. at 8).
The Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 1 of Engel, shown above,
discloses, in perspective view, a pill pouch 10 having wall 24 with spaced
longitudinal ribs 16, and seal 12.
3
Appeal 2016-007301
Application 13/156,466
annotated/?^. 2C
linear boundary p,w*.« In ear boundary pieces
The Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 2C of Engel, shown above,
discloses, in schematic view, a wall section with a rib structure similar to
Figure 1. (See Engel 123.) Engel discloses that “the wall is formed by a
first sheet 24na and a second sheet 24”/) having a fiber material 17’ placed
there between.” (Id. 133.)
As shown above in annotated Figure 2C, the coupling of sheets 24”a
and 24”6 defines a seam that runs horizontally in Figure 2C. The vertical
portions of wall 24 are defined by the sheets 24”a and 24”/). The coupling
of the sheets results in a thicker wall. We do not see, and the Examiner does
not explain, how this “defme[s] an enclosing seam” as recited in claim 15.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that “the
enclosing seam ... is mapped to [Engel’s] vertical seam created in the
bonding process.” (See Answer 7.)
In the Answer on pages 8—9, the Examiner finds that “[t]he seal
shown as element 12 within Engle [sic] can also read on the enclosing seam
in Claim 15.” However, the Examiner does not articulate findings to explain
how seal 12 defines “a piecewise linear boundary about the receiving pouch”
or “a plurality of finger recesses” as recited in claim 15. Accordingly, with
regard to seal 12, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation.
4
Appeal 2016-007301
Application 13/156,466
In view of the above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Engel anticipates independent claim 15 and claims 16 and 17
which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
REVERSED
5