Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2019

12636998 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/636,998 12/14/2009
27752 7590 02/15/2019
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Lawrence Smith
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.
11205 2475
EXAMINER
NGO,LIENM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2019 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE SMITH and
BRIAN JOSEPH ROSELLE
Appeal2017-009647
Application 12/636,998 1
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Procter & Gamble
Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009647
Application 12/636,998
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dispensing system, such as for a clothes
washing machine. Appellants appeal the rejection of dependent claims 5-7
which depend from claim 1 ( claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5). Claims 1
and 5 are reproduced below.
1. A modular fluid dispensing system configured to dispense at
least one fluid to a machine wherein the machine comprises an
aperture therein, the modular fluid dispensing system
compnsmg:
a module configured to be removably engaged with the
aperture of the machine, wherein the module comprises:
at least one receiving chamber configured to receive
at least one container, the at least one container configured
to receive the at least one fluid;
at least one engagement key configured to be
engaged with a receiver portion of the aperture; and
a fluid extracting element defining a passage
therethrough, wherein the fluid extracting element is
configured to engage a portion of the at least one container
to withdraw a portion of the at least one fluid from the at
least one container into the passage and to the machine.
5. The modular fluid dispensing system of Claim 1 comprising a
container authentication system configured to authenticate the at
least one container.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Bongini (EP 1,884,584 A2, publ. Apr. 19, 2007).
Claims 3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bongini and Bradford (US 7,784,310 B 1, iss. Aug. 31,
2010).
2
Appeal2017-009647
Application 12/636,998
OPINION
Claims 1-4 and 8-10
Appellants not do address the rejections of claims 1--4 and 8-10. See
generally, Br.; see also id. at 2 ("Only Claims 5-7 are appealed."). As such,
we summarily affirm these rejections.
Claims 5-7
Appellants argue the rejections of claims 5-7 together. We select
claim 5 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the laundry washing machine of Bongini
teaches all of the features of independent claim 1. Final Act. 2. As noted
above, these findings are uncontested. Concerning dependent claims 5-7,
the Examiner finds that Bradford teaches a washing machine with a
container authentication system, and the Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to add a container authentication system to the system of
Bongini "in order to determine if the container is authentic." Id. at 4; see
also 2nd Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that neither the protuberances 28, 30, 32, nor the
RFID tag in Bradford teach a container authentication system. Br. 2.
Concerning the protuberances, Appellants argue that: "The protuberances
are passive static structures incapable of carrying out any action, including
authenticating. As a result of the protuberances, only a reservoir of a
particular shape fits in particular location in the [ washing] machine. The
protuberances do not determine whether the particular reservoir is
authentic." Br. 2. Concerning the RFID tag, Appellants argue that the RFID
tag "is for conveying information about the container size ... [ and when
3
Appeal2017-009647
Application 12/636,998
used with] dosing history, would allow the [ washing] machine to provide
supply level statistics and alerts to the user," rather than "providing
information to the [ washing] machine to indicate that the reservoir is
authentic." Id.
Appellants are correct that Bradford teaches using the protuberances
ensure that the correct reservoir or container is inserted in the washing
machine and using the RFID tag for proper dosing. However, Bradford also
teaches that "[ t ]his arrangement [ referring to at least the RFID tag and
associated sensors] could also be used to hinder the use of imitation or
counterfeit chemical products within the machine 10." Bradford 6: 15-1 7.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bradford teaches or at least suggests
a "container authentication system configured to authenticate the at least one
container" as required by claim 5. Thus, we are not informed of error in the
Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4