14551890 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

Ex Parte Mehdizadeh

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2018

14551890 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/551,890 11/24/2014 26868 7590 Hasse & Nesbitt LLC 8837 Chapel Square Drive Suite C CINCINNATI, OH 45249 03/26/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sharmin MEHDIZADEH 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. USN-015R 8092 EXAMINER BUI,LUANKIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3728 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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): uspatent@hn-iplaw.com patent@hn-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHARMIN MEHDIZADEH Appeal2017-002164 1 Application 14/551,8902 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellant identifies U.S. Patent Application 14/551,926, as a related appeal. Br. 4. The Appeal Number for the related appeal is 2017-002043. 2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is the inventor, Sharmin Mehdizadeh. Id. at 3. Appeal2017-002164 Application 14/551,890 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter The Appellant's "invention relates to containers and caps for containers that dispense wipes, including wet and dry wipes. More particularly, the invention relates to improved containers and caps for wipes having a pop-up style dispensing means positioned beneath a reclosable lid." Spec. i-f 2. "[P]op-up containers provide a stack of interfolded flat wipes, which are commonly dispensed from a tub. Other pop-up containers provide a roll of wipes that are perforated between sheets and dispensed from an upright cylindrical container." Id. i-f 3. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A container for wipes having a pop-up style dispensing means positioned beneath a reclosable lid, said dispensing means comprising a raised member made of flexible, rubber-like material having at least one slit opening therein on a front surface of the raised member through which individual wipes are removed from the container when the lid is open, wherein when the lid is in a closed position it at least partially compresses the raised member and when the lid is released from its closed position the raised member pushes the lid open. Rejection Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Schultz (US 6,364,101 Bl, iss. Apr. 2, 2002), Zaidman (US 6,394,298 Bl, iss. May 28, 2002), Lim (US 2013/0175271 Al, pub. July 11, 2013), and and Ray et al. (US 2012/0145737 Al, pub. June 14, 2012) ("Ray"). 2 Appeal2017-002164 Application 14/551,890 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to a container and a cap for a container, respectively, and recite "wherein when the lid is in a closed position it at least partially compresses the raised member and when the lid is released from its closed position the raised member pushes the lid open." Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Lim's cover 120, and particularly sealing boss 121, compresses body upper surface cover 220, which is made of a resilient material. See Ans. 5-7 (citing Lim, Fig. 3); see Lim i-fi-130, 33. Based on this finding, the Examiner determines that when Lim' s cover is released from a closed position the material properties of the rubber-like material of body upper surface cover 220 will push upwardly on cover 120, 121 towards an open position. See Ans. 5-7. The Appellant argues persuasively that the Examiner's finding is in error. See Br. 8-10. The Appellant points out correctly that Lim's cover pulling part 250 pulls cover 120 open. See id. at 8-9 (citing Lim i-fi-140, 41, Fig. 4B). Indeed, Lim's resilient member 210 includes pressing part cover 240 for moving pressing part 140 of container cap 100; and, when a user presses pressing part cover 240 with adequate force, cover pulling part 250 will pull cover 120 open by use of a resilient restoring force. See Lim i1 41, Figs. 1, 3, 4A, 4B. Additionally, Lim explicitly describes that sealing boss 121 of cover 120 is in contact with body upper surface cover 220. Id. i-fi-137- 38; see also Br. 9. Lim does not describe that sealing boss 121 compresses body upper surface cover 220. Moreover, Lim's Figure 3 supports the explicit description that sealing boss 121 contacts body upper surface cover 220. As such, we determine that there is inadequate disclosure in Lim to 3 Appeal2017-002164 Application 14/551,890 find that body upper surface cover 220 is compressed by cover 120 or sealing boss 121 when cover 120 is in the closed position. Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner that Lim teaches "wherein when the lid is in a closed position it at least partially compresses the raised member and when the lid is released from its closed position the raised member pushes the lid open," as recited in claims 1 and 12. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Schultz, Zaidman, Lim, and Ray. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. REVERSED 4