GOJO Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

15211582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
15/211,582 07/15/2016 Mark Bullock 33298/05124-GOJ.P.5106 7708
151207 7590 10/02/2020
Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
The Calfee Building
1405 East Sixth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1607
EXAMINER
NICHOLS II, ROBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
gojodocket@mstfirm.com
ipdocket@calfee.com
wfrick@calfee.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MARK BULLOCK and SCOTT PROPER
__________

Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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 11–15 and 21–34. Claims 1–10 and
16–20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 GOJO
Industries, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 4, filed June 24, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to liquid dispenser
systems, such as liquid soap and sanitizer dispensers and bulk refill units.”
Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, “[l]iquid dispensing systems
typically have a container for holding dispensable liquid.” Id. ¶ 3. “The
system may become contaminated . . . if the seal of the container is
breached, for example, to refill the container with liquid rather than
installing a new, sealed, container.” Id.
Claims 11, 21, and 28 are independent. Claim 11 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
11. A bulk refill system comprising:
a refill container for holding a liquid to be dispensed;
a sensor for sensing a parameter indicative of a breach in
the integrity of the refill container;
wherein the breach in the integrity of the refill unit is
indicative of an attempt to refill the refill container;
a valve for intermittently permitting fluid to flow out of
the container;
a refill controller configured to receive one or more signals
from the sensor that are indicative of the integrity of the refill
container; and
wherein the refill controller transmits a signal to open the
valve if the integrity of the refill container has not been breached
and does not provide a signal to open the valve if the integrity of
the refill container has been breached.

Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Remijn (US 2011/0131714 A1, published June 9, 2011).
Claims 13 and 21–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Remijn and McNulty (US 2016/0184851 A1, published
June 30, 2016).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Remijn
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 recites “[a] bulk refill system” including a refill
container and “a sensor for sensing a parameter indicative of a breach in the
integrity of the refill container.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). A refill
controller is “configured to receive one or more signals from the sensor that
are indicative of the integrity of the refill container.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Remijn’s sensor array 535 senses a
“parameter indicative of a breach in the integrity of the refill container,” as
recited in claim 11. Final Act. 3.2
Appellant contends that Remijn fails to describe such a parameter or
signal. Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant contends that sensor array
535 merely senses the index of refraction of the fluid in fluid chamber 523
but does not sense a breach of the integrity of the container. Appeal Br. 12–
13.

2 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Jan. 11, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

4
We begin our discussion with a claim interpretation of the term
“breach.” An ordinary meaning of the noun “breach” encompasses “[a]n
opening, tear, or rupture.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/breach (last accessed Sept.
30, 2020). Thus, a “parameter indicative of a breach in the integrity of the
refill container” is a parameter that indicates that the refill container has
been opened, torn, or ruptured. Indeed, claim 11 itself indicates that the
parameter is indicative of an opening, tear, or rupture of a type calculated to
permit the container to be replenished with fluid. Specifically, according to
claim 11, the “breach in the integrity of the refill unit is indicative of an
attempt to refill the refill container.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
Appellant’s Specification does not formally define a “breach in the
integrity of the refill container.” Nevertheless, our understanding is that a
“parameter indicative of a breach in the integrity of the refill container” is a
parameter that indicates that the refill container has been opened, torn, or
ruptured in a manner that could permit the container to be refilled, which is
consistent with the teachings of the Specification. For example, the
Specification explains that the “integrity of the container 110 is breached if
the container 110 is opened, cut, ruptured, etc. so that fluid may be added to
the container 110.” Spec. ¶ 26; see also id. ¶ 35; Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing
Spec. ¶ 26).
Remijn describes a fluid dispensing system and explains that a
“potential problem with dispensing systems is that they can be refilled with
consumable products from another supplier.” Remijn ¶¶ 1, 14; see also id.
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

5
¶ 28. In order to discourage customers from refilling such systems with
fluids from other suppliers, Remijn teaches placing a chemical additive in
the genuine fluid to change the index of refraction of the fluid. Remijn
¶¶ 24–25. Light source 531 and sensor array 535 positioned in or near fluid
chamber 523 detect the index of refraction of fluid 501. In doing so, sensor
array 535 detects the presence or absence of the chemical additive that
indicates that fluid 501 is genuine. Id.; see also Remijn Fig. 3.
If the proprietor of the dispenser initially fills a container within the
dispensing system (not shown in Figure 3 of Remijn) with genuine fluid
including the chemical additive, and then a purchaser refills the container
with another supplier’s fluid, the measured index of refraction likely will
change. Furthermore, in order to refill the fluid container, the purchaser will
have to “breach the integrity of the container” in the sense of either opening
the container using means, such as a cap, designed for that purpose, or by
rupturing a container wall. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 6.3 Therefore, despite
Appellant’s argument to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that the index of refraction of the fluid in fluid chamber 523 is a “parameter
indicative of a breach in the integrity of the refill container,” as recited in
claim 11. Ans. 8.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 as anticipated by Remijn.

3 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Oct. 9, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

6
Claims 12 and 14
Appellant does not present arguments for dependent claim 14 apart
from the arguments presented for dependent claim 12. See Appeal Br. 14–
15. We select claim 12 as representative, and claim 14 stands or falls with
claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Dependent claim 124 recites “wherein the valve is located on the refill
container.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Appellant contends that Remijn
fails to describe such a valve. Id. at 14–15. Remijn describes flow
controller 515 as a valve or a pump. Remijn ¶ 18.5 Therefore, Remijn
describes a valve “located on the refill container.” As such, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Remijn describes flow controller 515 on
container 503. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7; see also Remijn ¶¶ 15, 18, Fig. 1.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 12 as anticipated by Remijn. We further sustain the
rejection of claim 14, which falls with claim 12.

4 We note that claim 12, as reproduced in the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief and in Appellant’s Response to Final Action, dated Nov. 13,
2018, purports to depend from itself. Should this application undergo
further prosecution, Appellant should clarify the dependency of claim 12.
For purposes of the subject appeal, we shall presume that Appellant intended
claim 12 to depend from claim 11.
5 The reference to “sensor 515” in paragraph 39 of Remijn is an obvious
typographical error. Paragraph 39 of Remijn as a whole, read in view of
Figure 6, indicates that “sensor 505” is intended. As such, we look to
paragraph 18 of Remijn, and not to paragraph 39, to indicate what
component reference numeral 515 identifies.
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

7
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites the “bulk refill system of claim 12,
wherein the refill controller transmits a signal to a dispensing system that is
indicative of a particular refill unit.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). This
feature is worded somewhat differently in the Specification. In particular,
the Specification describes that “[i]n some embodiments, signal 392 includes
an information indicative of the identity of the bulk refill container 310.”
Spec. ¶ 40. The Examiner finds the signal transmitted by refill controller
513 of Remijn to flow controller 515 for allowing or impeding flow to be
“indicative of a particular refill unit,” as recited in claim 15. Final Act. 4
(citing Remijn ¶¶ 14, 18); see also Ans. 7–8.
We acknowledge the Examiner’s position that paragraph 14 of Remijn
discloses that “[i]f the sensor signal is within the acceptable range, the
controller [will] allow the dispenser to function[ and] [i]f the sensor signal is
outside the acceptable range, the controller will cause the dispenser to cease
operation” Ans. 7–8; see also Final Act. 4. However, the controller’s ability
to allow or cease the dispenser’s operation based on the sensor signal being
respectively within or outside of an acceptable range is not representative of
refill controller 513 transmitting a signal to the dispenser that is “indicative
of a particular refill unit,” as required by claim 15. Additionally, paragraph
18 of Remijn merely describes controller 513’s ability to allow or cease the
dispenser’s operation based on the sensor signal being respectively within or
outside of an acceptable range, which similar to paragraph 14 of Remijn, is
not representative of refill controller 513 transmitting a signal to the
dispenser that is “indicative of a particular refill unit,” as required by claim
15. Consequently, the Examiner fails to establish adequately by a
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

8
preponderance of the evidence that Remijn teaches or suggests the
limitation(s) recited in claim 15.
Accordingly, for above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Remijn.

Obviousness over Remijn and McNulty
Claims 13 and 21–34
Claim 13 recites the “bulk refill system of claim 12, wherein valve is
located on a dispenser and the refill controller transmits the signal to a
dispenser controller.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).6 Independent claims 21
and 28 recite “bulk refill system[s].” Id. at 22–23 (Claims App.). Each of
the bulk refill systems recited in claims 21 and 28 includes a “refill valve for
permitting fluid to flow out of the refill container” and “an inlet valve on the
dispenser.” Id.
The Examiner finds that a “valve of cleaning mechanism,” depicted in
Figure 6 of Remijn, corresponds to the “valve” recited in claim 13 and to the

6 We note that the noun “valve,” as it appears in claim 13, lacks antecedent
basis. As a result, it is unclear whether the noun “valve,” as it appears in
claim 13, refers to the valve recited in claim 11 (which we presume to be the
ultimate parent of claim 13) or to a valve distinct from that recited in claim
11. Should this application undergo further prosecution, Appellant should
clarify whether the “valve” expressly recited in claim 13 has an antecedent
basis in parent claims 11 and 12. For purposes of the subject appeal, we
shall presume that the “valve” expressly recited in claim 13, which is located
on a dispenser rather than on the refill container, refers to a valve distinct
from that recited in parent claims 11 and 12.
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

9
“inlet valve” recited in claims 21 and 28. Final Act. 4 (citing Remijn ¶¶ 33–
35).7
Paragraphs 33 through 35 of Remijn, which reference Figures 4 and 5,
describe switches that serve to control the operation of toilet cleaning
mechanism 103 but fail to describe any electrically powered valve
associated with either dispenser 105 or toilet cleaning mechanism 103 for
controlling flow in response to the activation of a switch. See Appeal Br.
17–18. Additionally, paragraph 36 of Remijn, which references Figure 6,
fails to describe any electrically powered valve associated with either
dispenser 105 or toilet cleaning mechanism 103 for controlling flow in
response to the activation of a switch. In short, the Examiner has not
explained adequately how Remijn teaches or suggests either the “valve”
recited in claim 13 or the “inlet valve” recited in claims 21 and 28.
The Examiner relies on the teachings of McNulty for disclosure of the
refill controller recited in claims 13, 21, and 28. Final Act. 4, 6; Ans. 8–9.
As such, the Examiner does not rely on McNulty to teach or suggest either
the “valve” recited in claim 13 or the “inlet valve” recited in claims 21 and
28. Consequently, the Examiner has not established adequately by a
preponderance of the evidence how Remijn and McNulty, either alone or in

7 We note paragraphs 33 through 35 of Remijn describe Figures 4 and 5 of
Remijn. We further note Figure 6 of Remijn includes an illustration of
“cleaning mechanism 103.” We also note the Examiner indicates that
cleaning mechanism 103 “is located on a dispenser 103.” Final Act. 4.
However, reference numeral 103 of Remijn represents the “self-cleaning
toilet seat mechanism.” Remijn ¶ 33. For purposes of the subject appeal,
we shall interpret the dispenser to be element 105 (i.e., the housing) of
Remijn. See id. (“The seat cleaning mechanism 103 is normally stored in a
housing 105.”).
Appeal 2020-001330
Application 15/211,582

10
combination, teach or suggest either the “valve” recited in claim 13 or the
“inlet valve” recited in claims 21 and 28.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 13 and 21–34 as unpatentable over Remijn and McNulty.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 12, 14, 15 102(a)(1) Remijn 11, 12, 14 15
13, 21–34 103 Remijn, McNulty 13, 21–34
Overall
Outcome
11, 12, 14 13, 15, 21–
34

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).

AFFIRMED IN PART