Ex Parte Walker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

13290785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/290,785 11/07/2011 Thomas B. Walker
23643 7590 06/15/2016
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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.
5723-219490 5164
EXAMINER
MATHEW, FENN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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):
INDocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS B. WALKER,
MILAN C. MARA VICH, and DAVID O'NAN
Appeal 2014-005138 1,2
Application 13/290,785
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 17, 19, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 7,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Oct. 11, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 13, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed Jan. 30, 2014).
2 Under the heading Real Party in Interest, Appellants identify Berry
Plastics Holding Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005138
Application 13/290,785
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a seal established
between a drink cup and a lid mounted on the drink cup." Spec. i-f 2. We
reproduce independent claim 17, below, as representative of the appealed
claims.
1 7. A liquid container comprising
a cup including a brim, a floor, and a side wall extending
from the brim toward the floor, the side wall including a radially
inwardly facing first annular seal surface, the brim including an
axially upwardly facing second annular seal surface and a
radially outwardly facing third annular seal surface,
a lid including a bowl-shaped closure and a brim mount
appended to the bowl-shaped closure and configured to
cooperate with the bowl-shaped closure to retain the bowl-
shaped closure in a position closing a mouth opening into a liquid
reservoir chamber formed in the cup, wherein the bowl-shaped
closure includes a first seal ring arranged to engage the radially
inwardly facing first annular seal surface of the side wall of the
cup to establish a first liquid flow barrier therebetween, the brim
mount includes a rim coupled to the bowl-shaped closure, a lid-
removal flange, and a lid-removal blocker wall interconnecting
the rim and the lid-removal flange, the rim includes a second seal
ring arranged to engage the axially upwardly facing second
annular seal surface of the side wall of the cup to establish a
second liquid flow barrier therebetween and a third seal ring
arranged to engage the radially outwardly facing third annular
seal surface of the side wall of the cup to establish a third liquid
flow barrier therebetween, the lid-removal flange is located
below the lid-removal blocker wall and arranged to extend
downwardly in an inner direction toward the floor of the cup, the
lid-removal blocker wall is located between the third seal ring
and the lid-removal flange and arranged to engage an outer
portion of the brim during movement of the lid in an outer
direction opposite to the inner direction, and the bowl-shaped
closure further includes a cover and force-generator means
interconnecting the cover and the first seal ring for applying a
radially outwardly directed force to the first seal ring when the
2
Appeal2014-005138
Application 13/290,785
lid is mounted on the cup to urge the first seal ring against the
radially inwardly facing first annular seal surface of the side wall
of the cup to establish a press-plug interference fit between the
lid and the cup, and
wherein the force-generator means intersects the first seal
ring at a first plane and the force-generator means intersects the
cover at a second plane located between the first plane and the
floor of the cup.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTION3 AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 17, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by D' Amato (US 6,932,234 B2, iss. Aug. 23, 2005). See, e.g.,
Answer 2-3.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 7 recites that
[t]he [lid's] bowl-shaped closure further includes a cover and
force-generator means interconnecting the cover and the first
seal ring for applying a radially outwardly directed force to the
[lid's] first seal ring when the lid is mounted on the cup to urge
the first seal ring against the [cup's] radially inwardly facing first
annular seal surface of the side wall of the cup to establish a
press-plug interference fit between the lid and the cup.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added).
A claim limitation that includes the term "means," coupled with the
recitation of a function, is presumed to be intended to invoke means-plus
function treatment, i.e., treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 6. See Rodime
3 The Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejection that was made in
the previous Office Action. Answer 3.
3
Appeal2014-005138
Application 13/290,785
PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999). That
presumption is rebutted if the claim recites sufficient structure for
performing the recited function. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d
1256, 1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Otherwise, the claim is construed in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 6, by "look[ing] to the specification and
interpret[ing] that language in light of the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof." In re Donaldson Co., 16
F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, we interpret claim 17's
recitation of a force-generator means for applying a radially-directed force in
accordance with Section 112, i-f 6.
Appellants contend that paragraphs 90-91 of the Specification and
Figures 24 and 25 describe and illustrate the claimed force-generator means
for applying a radially-directed force. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 2, 5---6; see also,
e.g., Reply Br. 2--4. These portions of Appellants' application show and
describe that the claimed force-generator means for applying a radially-
directed force is an elastic portion that is in an uncompressed state when the
lid is not mounted on the cup, and, when the lid is mounted on the cup, the
elastic portion is in a compressed state that stores energy because the elastic
portion (and the lid's first seal ring that is connected to the elastic portion) is
moved inwardly. See id. As a result of the inward movement of the elastic
portion and the first seal ring and the stored energy, the elastic portion
applies a radially-directed force urging the elastic portion (and the first seal
ring) outwardly.
Having determined that we are to interpret the claimed force-
generator means in accordance with Section 112, i-f 6, and having determined
the structure described in Appellants' application which corresponds to the
4
Appeal2014-005138
Application 13/290,785
claimed force-generator means, we now determine whether the Examiner
errs in relying on D 'Amato to teach the claimed force-generator means. We
agree with Appellants' explanation of how D 'Amato appears to function-as
shown in D 'Amato' s Figures 16 and 17, wall portion 4b and shoulder 4a
connected thereto, on which the Examiner relies to teach the claimed force-
generator means (see, e.g., Answer 2-3), does not appear to move inwardly
from an uncompressed state to a compressed state when the lid is mounted
on the cup, and thus does not appear to store energy. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3-
4. Instead, when the lid is mounted to the cup in D'Amato, portions of the
lid's wall 4 acts to move the cup's bead 10 inwardly, such that bead 10 is
received in the lid's clamping groove 1. See D' Amato Figs. 16, 17. Further,
because in D' Amato there appears to be no inward movement of wall
portion 4b and shoulder 4a, it does not appear that wall portion 4b and
shoulder 4a apply a radially-directed force urging the elastic portion (and the
first seal ring) outwardly-rather it appears likely that when the lid is
mounted on the cup, because wall portion 4b and shoulder portion 4a contact
a portion of the cup that is connected to bead 10, wall portion 4b and
shoulder portion 4a are urged inwardly. Still further, the Examiner does not
identify any portion of D' Amato disclosing that wall portion 4b and
shoulder 4a connected thereto, or any other portion of the lid, moves
inwardly from an uncompressed state to a compressed state when the lid is
mounted on the cup, and it does not appear inherent to us that any portion of
D' Amato does so.
Thus, based on the above discussion, we conclude that D 'Amato does
not show the same structure or a structure equivalent to the claimed
structure. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner does not establish by a
5
Appeal2014-005138
Application 13/290,785
preponderance of the evidence that D 'Amato discloses the claimed force-
generator means, and, therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 1 7. Inasmuch as claims 19 and 22 recites similar limitations, we
also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 17, 19,
and 22.
REVERSED
6