Ex Parte Spenkelink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

12066992 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte REMKO ALEXANDER SPENKELINK
____________

Appeal 2012-0115431
Application 12/066,992
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to the Specification, Appellant invented “a suction nozzle,
as versatile as the known suction nozzle, yet with improved
manoeuvrability.” Spec. 2, ll. 2–3. Claims 1 and 10 are the only

1 Appellant identifies KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. as
the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 14,
2008), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 21, 2012), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 6, 2012), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed June 13, 2012).
Appeal 2012-011543
Application 12/066,992

2

independent claims under appeal. We reproduce, below, claim 1 as
representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner, comprising:
a suction head provided with a suction orifice having at
least one elongated side;
a coupling body for connecting the suction head to the
vacuum cleaner; and
support means for supporting the suction head;
wherein the suction head is rotatably connected to the
coupling body around a first rotation axis, allowing the suction
head to be rotated between a first position and a second
position, wherein, when the suction head is in the second
position, the elongated side of the suction orifice is
substantially perpendicular to the elongated side of the suction
orifice when the suction head is in the first position, the
elongated side remaining in a predetermined plane in the first
position and the second position, and
wherein in the first position the support means are
arranged behind a trailing edge of the suction head when a
direction of movement is perpendicular to the at least one
elongated side, wherein in the first position of the suction head
the support means are arranged in a rotation range occupied by
the suction head during rotation from its first to its second
position, while the suction nozzle comprises a surface which
causes the support means, upon and through rotation of the
suction head from its first to its second position, to move out of
the rotation range of the suction head.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
Appellant appeals the following rejections made by the Examiner:
claims 1, 2, 8, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Odachi (US 2004/0020005 A1, pub. Feb. 5, 2004);
Appeal 2012-011543
Application 12/066,992

3

claims 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Odachi and Nagai (US 6,345,408 B1, iss. Feb. 12, 2002); and
claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention3.

ANALYSIS
Section 112 Rejection
The Examiner states the limitation “a rotation range occupied by the
suction head during rotation from its first to its second position,” required by
each of independent claims 1 and 10 from which the remaining claims
depend, is indefinite. See Final Action 2 (mailed November 1, 2011); see
also Answer 6. To overcome the rejection, the Examiner “suggest[s] that
the appellant amend the limitation to define the rotation range of the suction
[head] either while the first rotation axis remains stationary or as being
relative to the support means or first rotation axis.” Answer 6 (emphases
added). We agree with Appellant, however, that “[c]aim 1 recites that the
rotation is about ‘a first rotation axis.” Appeal Br. 4–5. Thus, inasmuch as

3 Although the Examiner does not include the rejection under Section 112 in
the Answer’s Grounds of Rejection section, the Answer does state, in
relevant part, “[e]very ground of rejection set forth in the Office action from
which the appeal is taken . . . is . . . maintained by the examiner.” Answer
3–4. Further, the Final Office Action mailed November 1, 2011, states,
“[c]laims 1 and 10, as well as claims 2, 8, 11 and 15, which depend
therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. [§]112, second paragraph.” Final
Action 2. Still further, the Answer references the Section 112 rejection in
the Response to Arguments section (see id. at 6), and Appellant argues
against the rejection in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 4–5) and Reply
Brief (see Reply Br. 2–3). Thus, the rejection under Section 112 is
outstanding and under appeal.
Appeal 2012-011543
Application 12/066,992

4

the Examiner does not provide a persuasive basis for concluding the claim is
indefinite, we do not sustain the rejection under Section 112.
Obviousness Rejections
Independent claim 1 requires:
in the first position of the suction head the support
means are arranged in a rotation range occupied by
the suction head during rotation from its first to its
second position, while the suction nozzle
comprises a surface which causes the support
means, upon and through rotation of the suction
head from its first to its second position, to move
out of the rotation range of the suction head.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). Initially, Appellant argues the
rejection is in error because Odachi does not disclose that a surface of
sucking portion 4 pushes roller 17 and supporting portion 7 (i.e., a support
means) out of the way during rotation of sucking portion 4. See id. at 7.
Instead, Appellant argues, “the supporting portion (7) moves on its own . . . .
This can be a result of some type of internal connection that transmits the
turning of the joint portion (5) to the supporting portion (7).” See id.
In response, the Examiner states, however:
Even if there were some internal mechanism to
cause the lifting movement as suggested by the
appellant, the independent claims 1 and 10 only
require that the suction nozzle (as a whole) being
claimed has a surface that causes the motion of the
support means, wherein any internal mechanism
would inherently have at least one surface (either
internal cam surface, gear surface, internal surface
upon which a spring engages or some other
surface) that causes the support means to move
from the first position to the second position and
Appeal 2012-011543
Application 12/066,992

5

thus would still read on the claimed structure set
forth in the independent claims.
Answer 7–8. Based on our review of the Answer and Appellant’s Briefs, the
Examiner’s findings are reasonable. Further, Odachi’s description of the
embodiment illustrated in Figures 9–11, upon which the Examiner relies in
the rejection (see id. at 4–5) and against which Appellant argues (see Appeal
Br. 6–7; see also Reply Br. 5–6), describes supporting portion 7 holding
sucking portion 4 in contact with the surface to be cleaned 23 (through the
urging of supporting portion 7 toward sucking portion 4) in the normal
cleaning condition (i.e., orientation of sucking portion 4) shown in Figure 9.
See Odachi ¶ 40. Odachi further describes that supporting portion 7 moves
when sucking portion 4 rotates relative to joint portion 5 and connection
pipe 6. See id. Thus, we find the Examiner’s conclusion that Odachi
teaches the claim limitation “a surface which causes the support means,
upon and through rotation of the suction head from its first to its second
position, to move out of the rotation range of the suction head” reasonable.
Furthermore, the rejection is based on obviousness, and the Examiner
states the following:
The examiner maintains that the most obvious
solution to the disclosed movement of the support
member is through contact with the outer surface
of the suction head and even if other options were
considered to be obvious, such as an internal
mechanism (not shown or disclosed), the
movement through contact with an outer surface is
still clearly consider to be at least one of the
obvious solutions for imparting the disclosed
rotation, thus making the claimed structure
obvious.
Appeal 2012-011543
Application 12/066,992

6

Answer 7. We are persuaded the Examiner’s analysis is reasonable.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument that Odachi’s “internal mechanism may be
actuated at any point before or after the turning of the sucking portion 4
from its first to second position” (Reply Br. 6) is not persuasive. For these
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claim 10 is in error for
substantially the same reasons as claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10. We therefore
sustain the rejections of independent claim 10, as well as claims 2, 8, 11, 15,
and 17 that depend from claim 1 or claim 10 and which Appellant does not
separately argue.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh