Ex Parte Feanny

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2019

14230289 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/230,289 03/31/2014
104839 7590 03/18/2019
JackG Abid
255 South Orange Avenue Suite 1401
Orlando, FL 32802
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rachel Y. Feanny
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.
0121153 7650
EXAMINER
STEVENS, ALLAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2019 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):
creganoa@allendyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte RACHEL Y. FEANNY 1
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1 and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Rachel Y. Feanny is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A waste receptacle comprising:
a cylinder-shaped body having an open first end and a
closed second end, and first and second longitudinal sides
extending between the open first end and the closed second end,
said cylinder-shaped body defining a waste receiving cavity
therein;
said first longitudinal side defining an opening therein for
accessing the waste receiving cavity;
a first rail carried internally by said cylinder-shaped body
adjacent the open first end and extending along a periphery of
the waste receiving cavity;
a second rail carried internally by said cylinder-shaped
body adjacent the closed second end and extending along the
periphery of the waste receiving cavity, said first and second
rails extending around an entire peripheral edge of the cylinder-
shaped body;
said first rail comprising a plurality of retention devices
configured to carry a liner bag, each retention device
comprising a plurality of jagged teeth to engage the liner bag;
a lid portion to be received by the open first end, said lid
portion switchingly closing the open first end of said cylinder-
shaped body;
a hinge for coupling said lid portion to the cylinder-
shaped body;
a door slidingly received by said first and second rails
and moving between a first position where said door closes the
opening and a second position where said door is retracted
within the waste receiving cavity;
a biasing piston device for biasing said door in the
second position;
a latch carried by said cylinder-shaped body adjacent the
opening for maintaining said door in the first position;
a motor configured to open and close said lid portion; and
a proximity detector configured to detect when a user is
adjacent the waste receptacle and activate said motor to open
the lid portion;
2
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
said first and second rails each defining a groove;
said door having first and second opposing sides defining
respective tongues for cooperating with the grooves of said first
and second rails.
Br. 20-21 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gray (GB 2,395,105 A, pub. May 19, 2004), Huang (US 6,991,127 B2,
iss. Jan. 31, 2006), Aretz (US 7,922,029 Bl, iss. Apr. 12, 2011), Brodler2
(DE 102006017292 Al, pub. Oct. 19, 2006), and Scott (US 2004/0174268
Al, pub. Sept. 9, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Appellant raises two arguments regarding the Examiner's reliance on
Brodler to teach a biasing piston. Final Act. Appellant argues that "Brodler
is not analogous to the claimed invention and therefore cannot be used in a
proper obviousness rejection." Br. 13. Appellant also argues that "there is
not sufficient rationale to combine Brodler with Gray." Id. at 14.
We agree that Appellant's technical field relates to "the field of waste
disposal, and, more particularly, to a waste receptacle and related methods."
Spec. ,r 1; see Br. 14. The objective is "to provide a waste receptacle that is
easy to service and use." Id. ,r 5. Brodler relates to a piston-cylinder device
for rotatably connecting a flap (tailgate) to a motor vehicle. Brodler, 1. 3
2 The Final Office Action refers to Brodler as Broedler. See Final Act. 3, 7.
The Answer refers to Brodler as Brodler. See Ans. 10-11. We refer herein
to DE 102006017292 Al as Brodler, who is identified as the inventor.
3 All citations to the disclosure of Brodler are to the English translation from
Patent Translate at http://translationportal.epo.org, dated Nov. 15, 2016.
3
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
However, even if Brodler is from a different field of endeavor, the
teachings of Brodler are reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor
addressed of biasing a door open. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding even if a prior art reference is not within the field
of an inventor's endeavor, it may be analogous if it "is reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved"); Ans. 10.
Appellant recognized that waste receptacles are ubiquitous and used
frequently so that a significant logistical undertaking is required to maintain
a large number of waste receptacles of institutional users by janitorial teams.
Spec. ,r 2. Appellant was concerned with the problem of providing a waste
receptacle that is easy to service and use. Id. ,r 5. To address this problem,
Appellant conceived of providing a biasing device for biasing the door to the
open position. Id. ,r 9. After a user disables latch 13, which holds door 14
closed, door 14 opens automatically due to biasing device 20a-20b, which
"provid[ es] quick access to the liner bag (i.e. providing one-touch opening
mechanism)." Id. ,r 23. Thus, "when the waste receptacle 10 is serviced by
janitorial personnel, the process is quick and efficient." Id. Biasing device
20a-20b may comprise a biasing spring or a pressurized piston. Id. ,r 22.
Like Appellant, Brodler is concerned with the problem of improving
the opening of doors, in particular tailgates, on a motor vehicle. Brodler, 1.
In addition, Brodler is concerned with providing a fully automatic opening
operation. Id. Brodler recognizes that biasing systems using compression
springs and gas cylinder piston springs provide solutions to this problem. Id.
Brodler also recognizes that such biasing devices can open doors in a very
compact design via movement in a curved path that saves significant space.
Id.; see Spec. ,r 23 (biased pocket door saves space even during servicing).
4
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
Brodler also teaches that the problem it addresses applies not only to
tailgates on motor vehicles but also to other areas where compact designs are
needed to open doors and flaps such as the furniture industry. Brodler, 1.
As the Examiner also points out, guidance on this issue is provided by In re
ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007), which held
that hinges, springs, latches, counterweights, and similar mechanisms from
any area including a folding bed were analogous to a claimed gas spring and
folding mechanism for retaining a treadmill in a storage position. Id. at 1380
(citing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481-82 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that
housings, hinges, latches, and springs from a desktop telephone directory, a
piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing machine cabinet, a wooden furniture
cabinet, and a two-part housing for storing audio-cassettes were analogous to
the problem of connecting a display to a computer body)); Ans. 10. Thus,
Brodler is reasonably pertinent to Appellant's problem of providing a waste
receptacle that is easy to service and use.
Appellant also argues that a sufficient rationale is lacking to combine
the teachings of Brodler and Gray. Br. 14. Appellant argues that a skilled
artisan "would not appreciate the noted benefit from the surgically selected
feature ofBrodler's automobile lift gate." Id. at 15.
We determine that the Examiner's reason for combining Brodler's
biasing piston with Gray is supported by a rational underpinning of a simple
substitution of one known element in the field for another of recognized
equivalence for predictable results. Final Act. 7; Ans. 11. The Examiner
explains that the combined teachings of Gray, Aretz, and Scott already have
springs (Aretz) and other mechanisms (Scott's motor) to bias the door open.
Final Act. 5-7.
5
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
Brodler teaches a biasing piston as equivalent to a spring for biasing a
door to an open position. Brodler, Figs. 1-3. Indeed, Brodler teaches an
embodiment that substitutes a gas spring for a coil spring. Id. at 4, Fig. 4.
Brodler uses a biasing piston to improve systems by allowing doors to open
in a curved motion rather than a straight line to save considerable space as
Brodler does for doors and flaps. Id. at 1-2. This teaching would improve
Gray, which seeks space saving from a sliding door. Gray, 2:3-17.
Appellant also argues that there is not sufficient rationale to combine
Huang with Gray, i.e., to include the saw-toothed pinching members 34 of
Huang on Gray's waste bin to provide a means for holding some bags in an
open condition so that they do not fall within the bin or sag because Gray
already provides an approach to this very issue in the form of a liner bin to
prevent sagging. Br. 16-1 7. Appellant further argues that the proposed
modification therefore would be redundant and unneeded, and also would
change the principle of operation of Gray and its bin liner. Id. at 17.
These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
the embodiment of Gray's waste receptacle that holds waste bags 20 without
a separate bin liner as illustrated in Figure 7 of Gray. Ans. 12; Final Act. 4.
The Examiner adds Huang's retention devices (bag hangers 3) and their saw-
toothed pinching portion 34 to Gray's single-piece upper guide rim 28' to
hold bags 20 in an open condition without sagging into the bin. Final Act. 6.
This reasoning is supported by a rational underpinning based on Huang's
teaching that the elements hold an upper end of a refuse bag in a refuse can.
Huang, 2: 17-30, Fig. 6. The Examiner is employing this known technique
from Huang to the waste receptacle of Gray for similar, predictable benefits.
See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
6
Appeal2018-005940
Application 14/230,289
We also determine that this modification does not change the principle
of operation of Gray. Gray teaches that once bin bag 20 is full of waste, bin
bag 20 may be sealed with a suitable twist tie 22 and removed from bin 2 via
opening 18. Gray, 4: 13-18. Figures 2 and 4 of Gray illustrate twist tie 22
used to seal the top of bin bag 20 before it is removed from bin 2. In the
Figure 7 embodiment cited by the Examiner, bin bag 20 is removed laterally
through side opening 52 after being sealed at the top. Rigid liner 58' is not
used in this embodiment. Id. at 7:15-18. Huang's clamping elements would
hold bin bag 20 in Gray's waste receptacle without sagging until bin bag 2 is
tied off and removed from the waste receptacle.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7