Ex Parte Vernon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 2012

11130713 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/130,713 05/17/2005 Paul John Edward Vernon 9990 3539
27752 7590 01/05/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
HECKERT, JASON MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL JOHN EDWARD VERNON,
MARK WILLIAM GLOGOWSKI, JOHN CHRISTIAN HAUGHT,
ROBB RICHARD GARDNER, ADAM COSTELLO,
ANDRE CESAR BAECK, ANDRE CHRISTIAN CONVENTS,
JOHAN SMETS, PASCALE CLAIRE ANNICK VAN STEENWINCKEL,
PETER GERARD GRAY, GRAEME DUNCAN CRUICKSHANK, and
MICHAEL DUNCAN
____________

Appeal 2010-012318
Application 11/130,713
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012318
Application 11/130,713

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claim 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.1
Appellants’ invention is directed to a washing system. Spec. 2.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced below:
1. A washing system for cleaning within a washing zone comprising:
a. at least one inlet capable of fluid communication with a feed
water;
b. at least one treatment zone in fluid communication with the
at least one inlet, said at least one treatment zone comprising a
water softening zone, an electrolysis zone, and a dosing zone;
and
c. at least one outlet in fluid communication the at least
treatment zone capable of being in fluid communication with a
washing zone;
wherein said water softening zone comprises a capacitive deionization
device and wherein said dosing zone comprises means for dosing
product and product storage, and said product is an active detergent or
a detergent auxiliary.

1 Appellants have withdrawn the appeal with respect to appealed claims 1-3,
5, 6, 9-10, 12, and 14-17. Supp. App. Br. 2. Thus, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-10,
12, and 14-17 are no longer properly pending in this application. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1215.03 (8th Ed., Rev. 8,
July 2010) (claims withdrawn from appeal, i.e., non-appealed, will be
canceled by the direction of the examiner at the time of the withdrawal of
the appeal as to those claims); see also Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478
(BPAI 2008) (precedential). Upon return of this application to the
jurisdiction of the Examiner, the Examiner should cancel the non-appealed
claims or take other appropriate action to prevent the continued pendency of
the non-appealed claims.
Appeal 2010-012318
Application 11/130,713

3
9. The washing system of claim 1, wherein the dosing zone is fluidly
connected between the at least one inlet and at least one outlet and capable
of dispensing a fabric care composition.
10. The washing system of claim 9, further comprising a mixing zone
functionally connected between the dosing zone and the outlet capable of at
least partially mixing the fabric care composition with a second fluid.
11. The washing system of claim 10, wherein the mixing zone
comprises in-line mixers selected from venturi flow, direct injection pumps,
peristaltic pumps, gravity feeds, spraying, sonic mixers, ultrasonic mixers
and combinations thereof.
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Oberg US 5,431,032 July 11, 1995
Laughlin US 5,435,157 July 25, 1995
Pyo et al. US 5,473,914 December 12, 1995
Farmer US 5,954,937 September 21, 1999
Arai et al. US 6,743,351 B1 June 1, 2004
Michiko JP 2001070221 March 21, 2001

Appellants, Supp. App. Br. 2, request review of the following
rejection2 from the Examiner’s final office action:
1. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Michiko, Farmer, Arai et al., and either Oberg, Pyo et al.,
or Laughlin.

2 We note that Appellants presented two rejections of claim 11 for our
review in the original Appeal brief, filed September 23, 2009. App. Br. 3.
Appellants’ Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed March 8, 2010, modified the
rejections presented for appeal to the one listed above. Supp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2010-012318
Application 11/130,713

4
OPINION
Appellants argue that all of the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest
the claim 11 limitation of “a mixing zone [which] comprises in-line mixers
selected from venturi flow, direct injection pumps, peristaltic pumps, gravity
feeds, spraying, sonic mixers, ultrasonic mixers and combinations thereof.”
(App. Br. 3). Appellants also argue that Farmer does not provide a teaching
or suggestion of utilizing a CDU in any cleaning capacity, much less one in
conjunction with a detergent in the area of washing laundry or other
substrates. Thus, Appellants argue that there is no motivation or suggestion
to combine Farmer with either of the secondary references of JP ‘221 or
Arai. (Id. at 4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons provided by
the Examiner. The Examiner found that that JP ‘221 teaches a washing
system that provides feed water from a water supply, a softening zone, an
electrolysis zone, and a treatment zone, and an outlet. The Examiner found
that that JP ‘221 does not describe the capacitive deionization unit (CDU) as
a water softener. (Ans. 4). The Examiner found that Farmer discloses
CDUs as water softening devices. (Id.) The Examiner concluded that the
substitution of one kind of water softening device for another would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Id.). We agree with
the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have readily modified JP ‘221,
which discloses the need for softened water, with the water softening CDU
of Farmer. (Id. at 8).
The Examiner also found that JP ‘221 does not teach the use of
additional washing agents in a dosing zone. (Id.) The Examiner found that
Arai, column 3, lines 15-30, described the addition of materials that
Appeal 2010-012318
Application 11/130,713

5
correspond to the “active detergent or a detergent auxiliary” recited in
claim 1. (Id. at 4-5.) The Examiner further found that the mixing means
recited in claim 11 were well known in the art, and provides references said
to show those means. (Id. at 6.)
After review of the Examiner’s findings in the cited references, we
agree with the Examiner’s obviousness determination. Appellants have not
pointed to reversible error in in the Examiner’s reasoning that the subject
matter of independent claim 11 would have been obvious, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the applied prior art. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Michiko, Farmer, Arai, and either Oberg, Pyo, or Laughlin is affirmed.

ORDER
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Michiko, Farmer, Arai, and either Oberg, Pyo, or Laughlin is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).

AFFIRMED
bar