Foamtec International Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2019006712 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
15/295,794 10/17/2016 Fred Pisacane 44921.0517 9218
95996 7590 07/02/2020
Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP
233 White Spar Road
Prescott, AZ 86303
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
ktopolewski@zmfiplaw.com
lzemanmullen@zmfiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRED PISACANE
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
Technology Center 3700

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge,
LEE L. STEPINA

Opinion Dissenting-in-part filed by Administrative Patent Judge,
STEFAN STAICOVICI

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fred Pisacane.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a laminated mop head that uses
fabric lamination over a foam block. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A laminated foam mop head comprised of:
a foam block having a top surface, a bottom surface, and
two side surfaces;
at least one fabric material laminated with heat and
pressure along both the complete bottom and side surfaces of the
foam block without using an adhesive such that the shape of the
foam block after lamination retains its block shape; and
a bracket comprised of a top member and two identical
side members where the bracket is attached to the top surface of
the foam block such that the bottom and side surfaces of the foam
block are drawn upward and inward to form a mop head having
an elliptical shaped cross section and the top surface of the foam
block is pushed inward and not exposed.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Siemund US 3,406,420 Oct. 22, 1968
Mallory US 4,050,111 Sept. 27, 1977
Mattesky US 5,152,809 Oct. 6, 1992

Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
3
REJECTIONS2
I. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mallory and Mattesky.
II. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mallory.
III. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mallory, Mattesky, and Siemund.
OPINION
Rejection I–Mallory and Mattesky (claim 1)
The Examiner finds that Mallory discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 1, including a fabric material (cover 36) laminated along the
complete bottom and side surfaces of a foam block (sponge 32), but relies on
Mattesky to teach “a method of laminating foam . . . to a web . . . with heat
and/or pressure without using adhesive.” Non-Final Act. 2 (citing Mallory
2:7–55, Figs. 1, 2; Mattesky 4:7–45, 6:49–7:63, Figs. 2–5). In proposing to
modify the laminated fabric material of Mallory such that it is the result of a
lamination process using heat and pressure as taught by Mattesky, the
Examiner reasons “[i]t would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill
in the art that applying the known technique taught by Mattesky to the mop
head of Mallory would have yielded predictable results and results in an
improvement mop head” in which the predictable result would have been “a
mop head that would prevent separation or disengagement of the web from

2 The Final Office Action dated May 18, 2018, hereinafter “Final Act.” or
“Final Office Action,” incorporates the statement of rejections I–III in the
Non-Final Office Action dated September 14, 2017, hereinafter “Non-Final
Act.” or “Non-Final Office Action,” by reference. See Final Act. 2; Non-
Final Act. 2–4.
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
4
the foam block.” Id. at 2–3 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398 (2007).
Appellant argues “[l]amination, by definition, requires that the layers
be united by an adhesive or other means[, and u]nlike Applicant’s claimed
invention, Mallory fails to disclose at least one fabric material laminated
along both the complete bottom and side surfaces of the foam block with any
means.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Instead, Appellant asserts,
“Mallory discloses a web of netlike material extending over the outer side
and face of a sponge ‘in a conventional manner.’” Id. Appellant contends
that cover 36 of Mallory is secured to sponge 32 via a clamp. Id. (citing
Mallory 2:52–55). According to Appellant, this means that “even without
requiring the exact process of lamination claimed by Applicant, Mallory also
fails to disclose that a fabric material is laminated at all along both the
complete bottom and side surfaces of a foam block.” Id.
In response, the Examiner states “Mallory is not relied upon for the
process of laminating with heat and pressure without using an adhesive.
Mallory (Fig. 1–2) shows a fabric that extends over three surfaces of a foam
block.” Ans. 4.
Appellant’s Specification describes the process of laminating as
follows: “Fabric material 22 may be laminated to the bottom surface 16 and
side surfaces 18 of the foam block by using any known means of uniting
superimpose[d] layers that does not include a glue or adhesive, such as, for
example, heat and pressure applied to the superimposed layers.” Spec. ¶ 11
(emphasis added). Thus, the Specification provides two examples of
lamination, one performed via the use of glue or adhesive and the other via
the use of heat and pressure. In both cases, the two materials are “united” as
a result of the lamination. In light of the Specification, the broadest
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
5
reasonable interpretation of the term “laminated” requires more than merely
placing and securing of one layer over another, it requires uniting these
layers. We agree with Appellant that Mallory teaches clamping cover 36 to
sponge 32. See Mallory 2:42–55, Figs. 1, 2. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “laminated,” Mallory’s clamped combination of
cover 36 and sponge 32 does not qualify as a fabric material laminated along
a surface of a foam block. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that “Mallory
discloses a mop head 10 comprising a foam block 32 having top, bottom
surface, two side surfaces, a fabric material 36 laminated along both the
bottom and side surfaces of the foam block 32 without using an adhesive”
(Non-Final Act. 2) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The
Examiner’s proposed modification to window cleaner 10 of Mallory
presumes Mallory’s fabric 36 and block 32 are laminated. See Non-Final
Act. 2–3. In other words, the Examiner proposes to modify a laminated
structure in Mallory such that its lamination is created via heat and
pressure.3 As the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 relies on an insufficiently
supported finding of fact, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Rejection II–Mallory (claims 4 and 7)
Independent claim 4 recites, in part, “a foam block having a top
surface, a bottom surface, and two side surfaces; at least one fabric material

3 We realize that in a Decision in Appeal Number 2014-007376, Application
Serial Number 11/401,686, hereinafter the “’376 Decision,” the Board
affirmed a rejection of a similar claim as unpatentable over Mallory and
Mattesky. ’376 Decision 6. However, claims 4 and 7 in Rejection II of the
present Appeal are based on Mallory alone and make clear that the Examiner
does not propose to modify the window cleaner of Mallory to include
lamination of fabric 36 to block 32, but, rather, the Examiner is relying on
Mallory to disclose that fabric 36 is laminated to block 32. No rejection
similar to Rejection II was addressed in the ’376 Decision.
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
6
laminated to the complete bottom and side surfaces of the foam block.”
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Claim 4 further recites that the foam block
has an elliptical shape with pointed edges. See id. Independent claim 7
recites substantially similar limitations. See id. at 17.
The Examiner finds
Mallory discloses the claimed invention as above except for a
mop head having an elliptical shaped cross section with pointed
edges such that a center point located between the two pointed
edges is equidistant to the bottom surface of the foam block and
a center of the open bottom of the bracket or a to surface of the
foam block that the two end surfaces of the foam block form
elliptical shapes having pointed ends such that a vertical distance
from the pointed ends to the bottom of the foam block is about
the same as a vertical distance to the bracket.
Non-Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner finds that Mallory
fails to disclose only the recited details of the shape of the mop head in
claims 4 and 7.4 The Examiner determines that the recited shape is not
disclosed as critical to Appellant’s invention, and, therefore, it would have
been an obvious matter to change the shape of Mallory’s foam block to meet
these requirements. Id.
Appellant argues that Mallory fails to disclose that cover 36 is
laminated to the bottom and sides of sponge 32. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner does not directly address Appellant’s argument regarding
lamination as it applies to claims 4 and 7. As discussed above, we do not
agree that Mallory teaches that cover 36 and sponge 32 are laminated to each
other. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 7 as
unpatentable over Mallory.

4 Unlike claim 1, claims 4 and 7 do not require lamination via heat and
pressure.
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
7
Rejection III–Mallory, Mattesky, and Siemund (claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9)
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 each depend from one of claims 1, 4, and 7.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Siemund
in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the findings of fact
regarding Mallory discussed above with respect to Rejections I and II. See
Non-Final Act. 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2,
3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over Mallory, Mattesky, and Siemund.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103(a) Mallory, Mattesky 1
4, 7 103(a) Mallory 4, 7
2, 3, 5, 6, 8,
9
103(a) Mallory, Mattesky,
Siemund
2, 3, 5, 6,
8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1–9

REVERSED

Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
8

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting-in-part.
I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision to reverse the
Examiner’s rejections under U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Mallory and Mattesky and of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over
Mallory, Mattesky, and Siemund.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mallory
discloses “a fabric material 36 laminated along both the bottom and side
surfaces of the foam block 32 without using an adhesive.” Non-Final Act. 2
(emphasis added).
The Majority determines that because Mallory discloses clamping
cover 36 to sponge 32 (see Mallory 2:42–55, Figs. 1, 2) and “the term
‘laminated’ requires uniting these layers,” the Examiner’s finding that
Mallory’s fabric material 36 and foam block 32 are “laminated” is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See supra (citing Spec. para.
11).
I do not agree that the Examiner’s use of the term “laminated” in the
Non-Final Action, when referring to Mallory’s teachings, is fatal to the
rejection, because in the Answer the Examiner clarifies Mallory’s teachings
and finds that “Mallory . . . shows a fabric that extends over three surfaces
of a foam block.” Ans. 4 (citing Mallory, Figs. 1, 2). Hence, the Examiner
recognizes that Mallory’s fabric material 36 merely extends over foam block
32, and, thus, acknowledges that fabric material 36 and foam block 32 are
not united, which is why the Examiner then employs Mattesky to teach a
laminating process to unite fabric material 36 and foam block 32. See Non-
Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4–5.
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
9
The Examiner’s reasoning to modify Mallory’s clamp attachment of
fabric material 36 to foam block 32 using the laminating process of
Mattesky, to “prevent separation or disengagement” of Mallory’s fabric
material 36 from foam block 32, implies that the Examiner interpreted
Mallory’s fabric material 36 and foam block 32 as not united. See Non-
Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 5. In other words, the Examiner’s rationale implies that
the Examiner interpreted Mallory’s fabric material 36 and foam block 32 as
not united, because the improvement alluded to by the Examiner of
employing Mattesky’s laminating process is that it “prevent[s] separation or
disengagement” of Mallory’s fabric material 36 from foam block 32.
As such, the Examiner’s clarification of the interpretation of
Mallory’s teachings presented in the Answer is consistent with the
Examiner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Mallory and Mattesky
presented in the Non-Final Action. To view Mallory’s fabric material 36 as
united, i.e., laminated, to foam block 32, would in fact be inconsistent with
the Examiner’s reasoning to “prevent[s] separation or disengagement” of
Mallory’s fabric material 36 from foam block 32.
For the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded of Examiner error and
would sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Mallory and Mattesky.
As for the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, Appellant’s
arguments do not refer to the Examiner’s use of Siemund’s teachings of a
polyester fabric or fiber textile, or the reasoning to combine the teachings of
Mallory, Mattesky, and Siemund. See Non-Final Act. 3–4; Appeal Br. 12–
13. Hence, I would also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9
over the combined teachings of Mallory, Mattesky, and Siemund.
Appeal 2019-006712
Application 15/295,794
10
Finally, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 4 and 7,
because the Examiner’s modification of Mallory does not unite, i.e.,
laminate, fabric material 36 and foam block 32, I concur with the Majority’s
decision to not sustain the rejection under U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 4 and 7
as unpatentable over Mallory.