Ex Parte Hubmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12966958 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/966,958 12/13/2010
23409 7590 09/01/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Curtis H. Hubmann
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.
083258-9122-01
(JD276CUS)
9762
EXAMINER
HWU,DAVISD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CURTIS H. HUBMANN,
MARKT. MACLEAN-BLEVINS, and MATTHEW YOUNG
Appeal2014-007377
Application 12/966,958
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-007377
Application 12/966,958
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a multiple function dispenser. Claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of dispensing different concentrations of chemical
concentrate from a concentrate container at different flow rates,
the method comprising:
providing a stream of water and a chemical concentrate to
be diluted in the stream of water between an inlet of a body
member and an outlet of the body member to provide a fluid
concentration dispensable from the outlet at one of a plurality of
flow rates;
rotating at least a portion of an eductor to vary one of a
volume of chemical concentrate and the flow rate;
sliding the eductor to vary the other of the volume of
chemical concentrate and the flow rate; and
selectively dispensing the fluid concentration through the
outlet.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ketcham et al.
("Ketcham")
US 6,425,534 B2
REJECTIONS
July 30, 2002
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ketcham.
2
Appeal2014-007377
Application 12/966,958
OPINION
Appellants argue first that the control knob 4 and gear wheel 21 of
Ketcham are not part of the control plate 17, and so cannot meet the
limitation of "rotating at least a portion of an eductor." Appeal Br. 5, 6.
Appellants' Specification provides no specific definition for "eductor", but
the disclosed eductor 11 is composed of at least two separate components,
first, outer eductor part 24 and inner, second eductor part 26. Spec. i-f 39;
Fig. 3. Under these circumstances, we do not find the Examiner's implicit
finding that the gear wheel 21 and actuator 4 of Ketcham are both part of an
eductor to be unreasonable.
Appellants next argue that even if rotating the knob 4 is considered
rotating part of the eductor, "no part of the knob 4, the gear wheel 21, or the
control plate 17 slides to also vary the flow rate of the carrier stream."
Appeal Br. 7. We agree. Ketcham discloses a slide control 3 that actuates a
valve element 24. See Ketcham 7:41--44, Figs. 1 and 3A. Ketcham's valve
element 24 cannot reasonably be considered part of the eductor of Ketcham
because it is an entirely separate element located upstream of the eductor.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants make the same arguments for claims 2-20 (Appeal Br. 5-
10), and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-20 for the
same reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
3