Ex Parte Sandmeyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14804877 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/804,877 07/21/2015
133711 7590
Koko Masako Sandmeyer
1824 Federal Ave.
#6
Los Angeles, CA 90025
08/21/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Koko Masako Sandmeyer
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.
9984
EXAMINER
ATTEL, NINA KAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2018 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 KOKO MASAKO SANDMEYER
Appeal2017-009227
Application 14/804,877 1
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claims 1 and 2 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we
reproduce both claims.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koko Masako
Sandmeyer. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009227
Application 14/804,877
1. A pliable wire-like permanent attachment to the disposable car
garbage bag that enables you to manipulate and maneuver it to
attach/secure to any part your car.
2. A pliable wire-like permanent attachment to the disposable car
garbage bag that if scented is capable of use as an air freshener.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by
McRoberts (US 1,461,802, iss. July 17, 1923);
II. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Crecelius
(US 1,486,566, iss. Mar. 11, 1924); and
2 Briefly, in the Final Office Action mailed October 5, 2016, the Examiner
rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as non-enabled, and
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite and as omitting essential elements.
See Final Action 2--4. In response, on October 12, 2016, Appellant amended
claims 1 and 2 (see After Final Amendment 2) in a manner that appears to
address the § 112 rejections. The Examiner entered the claim amendments.
See generally Advisory Action mailed Nov. 3, 2016. In the Advisory
Action, the Examiner withdraws certain rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
but does not refer to the status of the rejections under§ 112. See id. In the
Answer, the Examiner indicates that certain rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 and 103 remain, while withdrawing other rejections under§§ 102
and 103. Answer 2. Again, however, the Examiner does not refer to the
status of the rejections under§ 112. See generally Answer. Inasmuch as
Appellant's claim amendments appear to address the § 112 rejections, and,
thereafter, the Examiner does not indicate that the Examiner rejects the
claims under§ 112, including in the list of "ground[s] of rejection [that] are
applicable to the appealed claims" (Answer 2), we conclude that the
Examiner no longer rejects the claims under§ 112.
2
Appeal2017-009227
Application 14/804,877
III. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McRoberts
or Crecelius, and Dayton et al. (US 2008/0247679 Al, pub.
Oct. 9, 2008) ("Dayton") and/or Rood (US 3,733,016, iss.
May 15, 1973).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
As set forth above, claim 1 recites, in its entirety, "[a] pliable wire-
like permanent attachment to the disposable car garbage bag that enables
you to manipulate and maneuver it to attach/secure to any part your car."
After carefully reviewing Appellant's arguments regarding McRoberts (see
Appeal Br. 7-8; see Reply Br. 4--5), we agree with the Examiner that,
despite differences between McRoberts's device and aspects of Appellant's
invention that are not recited in claim 1, McRoberts discloses the claimed
pliable-wire like permanent attachment to a disposable garbage bag, as
described in claim 1 (see Answer 9-10, citing McRoberts 1, 11. 65-95).
More specifically, the Examiner adequately supports the factual findings
regarding McRoberts in the identified portion of the Answer-i.e., the
Examiner shows that McRoberts discloses all that is recited in claim 1. In
contrast, Appellant fails to persuade us that the Examiner incorrectly finds
that McRoberts's wire may be bent, similar to Appellant's claimed wire-like
attachment, so as to attach McRoberts' s bag to various parts of a car, in a
manner similar to Appellant's claimed bag.
We note that Appellant may not rely on differences between what is
disclosed in the Specification and what is disclosed by McRoberts, to
establish that the claims are novel over McRoberts. Nor may Appellant rely
3
Appeal2017-009227
Application 14/804,877
on the fact that McRoberts discloses components that are not recited in
Appellant's claim (or not described in Appellant's Specification). Rather, as
stated above, McRoberts anticipates claim 1 because we agree with the
Examiner that McRoberts discloses everything recited by claim 1. Thus, we
sustain the rejection.
Rejection II
After carefully reviewing Appellant's arguments regarding Crecelius
(see Appeal Br. 6-7; see Reply Br. 3), we agree with the Examiner that
despite differences between Crecelius's device and aspects of Appellant's
invention that are not recited in claim 1, Crecelius discloses the claimed
pliable-wire like permanent attachment to a disposable garbage bag, as
described in claim 1 (see Answer 5-7, citing Crecelius 1, 11. 52-80). More
specifically, the Examiner adequately supports the factual findings regarding
Crecelius in the identified portion of the Answer. In contrast, Appellant fails
to persuade us that the Examiner incorrectly finds that Crecelius' s wire may
be bent, similar to Appellant's claimed wire-like attachment, so as to attach
Crecelius's bag to various parts of a car, in a manner similar to Appellant's
claimed bag. Thus, we sustain the rejection.
Rejection III
As set forth above, claim 2 recites, in its entirety, "[a] pliable wire-
like permanent attachment to the disposable car garbage bag that if scented
is capable of use as an air freshener." Appeal Br., Claims App. For the
reasons set forth above, we find that both Crecelius and McRoberts disclose
a pliable wire-like permanent attachment to a disposable car garbage bag.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that
4
Appeal2017-009227
Application 14/804,877
Dayton ... teach[ es] ... a waste bag with a fragrance positioned
such that air may pass over the fragrant material as it is being
released from the bag, wherein the fragrant material is capable of
being in the form of any odor reducing agent and may be
disposed in one or more of a frame of the bag, an exterior surface
of the bag, a separate odor reducing member, an attached
member and the like[, ... ] and Rood ... teach[ es] that it is both
known and desirable ... to configure a pliable wire-like
attachment or hanging means with a scent or deodorizing
capabilities.
Answer 11. Conversely, Appellant's argument that "Dayton [and] Rood ...
are [both] structurally different than [the] invention" (Appeal Br. 8) do not
persuade us that the Examiner errs in combining aspects of McRoberts or
Crecelius, with aspects of Dayton and/or Rood, to provide all of the
recitations of claim 2. Thus, we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections
of claims 1 and 2.
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
5