Ex Parte Zhadanov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

14164918 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/164,918 01/27/2014 Eli Zhadanov ZHADANOV-20 2778
20151 7590 09/08/2017
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD AVENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK, NY 10017
EXAMINER
PEERCE, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2017 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):
INFO @ FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELI ZHADANOV and SAM ZHADANOV
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
Technology Center 2800
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates to bathroom
accessories and in particular to showerheads for issuance of water for
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
showering by users.” Spec. 1:2—3.1 The Specification explains that a
“showerhead” includes a “hollow housing,” a “cover” for the housing, and a
“light source arranged in the housing.” Abstract. The Specification further
explains that the housing includes a “plurality of outlet openings through
which water passing through the housing issues in form of water jets,” and
the light source “generates] light which issues from the showerhead only
through local transparent portions of the cover that are closely adjacent to
the outlet openings and separated from each other by non-transparent
portions of the cover.” Id-
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A showerhead, comprising
a hollow housing connectable to a source of water;
a cover which covers said housing and is provided with a
plurality of outlet openings through which water passing
through said housing issues in form of water jets;
a light source arranged in said housing and generating
light,
wherein said cover is provided with a plurality of local
transparent portions at least some of which are each adjacent to
at least one of said openings and separated from other
transparent portion [sic] by non-transparent portions, so that the
light generated by said light source exits said housing only
through said transparent portions which are adjacent to said
1 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed January 27, 2014; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed August 12, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
November 14, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 6,
2017; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed February 21, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
outlet openings of said cover and thereby adjacent to the issuing
water jets,
wherein said cover has
an outer one-piece non-transparent plate-shaped
element provided with a plurality of said openings and
an inner one-piece plate-shaped element which is
transparent and has a plurality of transparent hollow
projections which are inserted into said openings of said
outer non-transparent plate-shaped element and form
[sic] said local transparent portions,
wherein said outer non-transparent plate-shaped element
and said inner transparent plate-shaped element are flat and
have flat surfaces which face one another and are in surface-to-
surface contact with one another,
wherein said openings of said outer non-transparent
plate-shaped element are bound by inner circumferential
surfaces and said projections of said inner transparent plate­
shaped element are bound by outer circumferential surfaces,
wherein said projections of said inner plate-shaped
element extend from said surface of said inner plate-shaped
element,
wherein said inner circumferential surfaces of said
openings of said outer non-transparent plate-shaped element
and said outer circumferential surfaces of said projections of
said inner transparent plate-shaped element are in
circumferential surface-to-surface contact with each other.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Shneider
Yen
Paget
US 5,222,796
US 2003/0134564 A1
US 2011/0089259 A1
June 29, 1993
July 17, 2003
Apr. 21,2011
3
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
Zhou et al. (“Zhou”)
Tsai
US 2012/0170424 Al July 5, 2012
US 2014/0268650 Al Sept. 18, 2014
(filed Mar. 15,2013)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhou alone or in view of either Tsai or Yen. Final
Act. 2—6, 9-10; Ans. 2—6, 8—9, 12; App. Br. 4.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhou and Shneider. Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 6—7; App. Br. 4.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhou and Paget. Final Act. 7; Ans. 7; App. Br. 4.
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2—10) and Answer (Ans. 2—12). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1 and 8
A Transparent, One-Piece, Plate-Shaped Inner Element
with a Plurality of Transparent Hollow Projections
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 8 because Zhou does not disclose or suggest “an inner one-
piece plate-shaped element which is transparent and has a plurality of
transparent hollow projections” where the projections “are of one piece”
with the element. See App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 5, 7. In particular,
ANALYSIS
4
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
Appellants contend that the Examiner “totally misinterpreted” element 31 in
Zhou Figure 1 because element 31 denotes “several transparent water
outlets” rather than a transparent, one-piece, plate-shaped element. App.
Br. 5 (quoting Zhou 139); Reply Br. 5 (quoting Zhou 139). In addition,
Appellants contend that the water outlets 31 “are discretely individually
inserted into the cover element 32 at certain intervals from each other.”
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 5. Appellants then assert that a “person skilled in the
art” would not consider “a plurality of individual, discrete mutually spaced
water (nozzle-like) outlet[s]... a single plate-shaped element.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that “it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art, at the time that the invention was filed to have
connected the transparent water outlets 31 to form an integral piece.”
Ans. 8; see Final Act. 3—4, 6, 8—9. An enlarged portion of Zhou’s Figure 1
appears below.
This portion of Zhou’s Figure 1 shows several adjacent water outlets
31, where each outlet has a frustoconical projection extending from an
annular base. The Examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to extend the annular bases towards each
other and then connect them to form “an integral internal piece as opposed to
individual outlets to simplify manufacture and repair by providing
5
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
significantly less independent parts, as is well known in the art.” Ans. 9; see
id. at 9-10; see Final Act. 4, 6, 8—9. The Examiner also finds that a flat,
plate-shaped element would “naturally stem” (Ans. 9) from integrating the
water outlets 31 into a single part by connecting their annular bases because
“the outlets 31 would [then] share a common base that would form a flat,
plate-shaped element.” Ans. 9—10; see Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner
explains that integrating multiple pieces into a single part “does not render
the claimed invention nonobvious over the prior art if the use of an integral
structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” Ans. 4
(citing In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965)); see Final Act. 3, 6.
In response to the Examiner’s position, Appellants do not argue that
integrating the water outlets 31 would have been “contrary to the
understanding and expectations of the art.” See Carl Schenck, A.G. v.
Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 785—86 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Nor do Appellants
direct us to evidence that the claimed combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
In addition, the Examiner finds that: (1) Tsai teaches “an inner one-
piece plate-shaped element” with “a plurality of hollow projections”; and
(2) Yen teaches “an inner one-piece plate-shaped element” made from
transparent material with “a plurality of transparent hollow projections.”
Ans. 9; see Final Act. 9—10; Tsai 133, Figs. 3^4 (upper cap 81 with
nozzles 813); Yen || 13, 16, Figs. 1, 4 (face panel 30 with nozzles 33).
Further, the Examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to replace Zhou’s separate water outlets 31 with
6
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
a one-piece, plate-shaped element to reduce the number of parts, provide a
simpler showerhead, and facilitate manufacture and repair. Ans. 12. Thus,
the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
While Appellants “disagree^ with the Examiner’s analysis and
conclusions” (App. Br. 6) concerning Tsai and Yen, Appellants do not
identify any specific grounds for that disagreement. See id. at 6—7; Reply
Br. 6—7. Stated differently, Appellants do not proffer a sufficient argument
on the merits pertaining to the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
concerning Tsai and Yen. Consequently, Appellants have not established
error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions concerning Tsai and Yen.
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that the
applicable rules “require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than
a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”).
SURFACE-TO-SURFACE CONTACT
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 8
because Zhou does not disclose or suggest (1) inner and outer elements each
having flat surfaces that “face one another and are in surface-to-surface
contact with one another” and (2) an inner element’s projections “in
circumferential surface-to-surface contact” with an outer element’s
openings. See App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 5, 7.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Zhou discloses a non-transparent panel cover 32
having flat surfaces and openings that corresponds to the claimed “outer
7
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
one-piece non-transparent plate-shaped element.” Ans. 9; see Final Act. 2—
3, 5; Zhou 139, Figs. 1,3. As explained above, the Examiner finds that the
claimed “inner one-piece plate-shaped element” would “naturally stem”
from integrating the water outlets 31 into a single part by connecting their
annular bases. Ans. 9—10; see Final Act. 8—9. In addition, the Examiner
finds that with or without integrating the outlets 31 into a single part, Zhou
teaches surface-to-surface contact according to claims 1 and 8. Ans. 10-11;
see Final Act. 2—3, 5—6, 8—9. More specifically, the flat annular bases of the
outlets 31 corresponding to the claimed inner element contact the flat
surfaces on the cover 32 corresponding to the claimed outer element.
Ans. 10-11; Zhou 139, Figs. 1, 3; see Final Act. 8. Further, the
frustoconical projections of the outlets 31 contact the openings in the
cover 32. Ans. 10-11; Zhou 139, Figs. 1, 3; see Final Act. 8. Appellants
did not address the Examiner’s findings concerning surface-to-surface
contact and have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning. See Reply Br. 4—8.
Summary for Independent Claims 1 and 8
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 8 for
obviousness based on Zhou alone or in view of either Tsai or Yen. Hence,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 4 and 6
Claims 4 and 6 depend from claim 1. App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x).
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for claims 4 and 6. App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 4—8; see Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Because Appellants do
not argue the claims separately, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
8
Appeal 2017-008816
Application 14/164,918
claims 4 and 6 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6, and 8.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9