Greenfield, Neal William. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

2019004827 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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.
14/954,937 11/30/2015 Neal William Greenfield TUP26918 3851
62439 7590 06/22/2020
SINORICA, LLC
20251 Century Blvd.
Suite 140
Germantown, MD 20874
EXAMINER
LEBRON, BENJAMIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2020 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):
SINORICA@GMAIL.COM
pair@sinorica.com
sinorica@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NEAL WILLIAM GREENFIELD and
CHRISTOPHER M. GREENFIELD
____________

Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
14/954,937 (’937 Appl.) filed Nov. 30, 2015; the Final Office Action dated
July 6, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 3, 2018 (“Br.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 25, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not file
a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 of Application 14/954,937. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ’937 Application relates to a pool cleaning apparatus used to
manually clean leaves, bugs, and debris from swimming pools. Spec. 1, ll.
13–15.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’937 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Brief.
1. A handheld pool skimmer comprising:
an edging frame;
a mesh;
a plurality of handgrips;
a plurality of brushes;
the edging frame comprising an inner lateral surface, an
outer lateral surface, a first assembly piece and a second
assembly piece;
the mesh traversing into the edging frame from the inner
lateral surface;
the mesh being perimetrically pressed in between the first
assembly piece and the second assembly piece;
each of the plurality of handgrips being connected to the
inner lateral surface;

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Neal William Greenfield as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937

3
the plurality of handgrips being distributed around the
edging frame;
each of the plurality of brushes being mounted into the
edging frame from the outer lateral surface; and
each of the plurality of handgrips and the mesh
overlapping each other.
Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
MacDonald US 4,176,419 Dec. 4, 1979
Soich US 4,822,487 Apr. 18, 1989
Ward US 4,904,379 Feb. 27, 1990
Wall et al. (“Wall”) US 5,342,513 Aug. 30, 1994
Cote US 5,759,388 June 2, 1998
Warrington US Des. 420,181 Feb. 1, 2000
Turner US 2002/0074297 A1 June 20, 2002
Mhoon et al. (“Mhoon”) US 2004/0074831 A1 Apr. 22, 2004
Meadows US 2008/0006375 A1 Jan. 10, 2008
Stern et al. (“Stern”) US 2008/0308478 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103:3
1. Claims 1 and 6–10 are rejected over Warrington in view of
MacDonald, Wall, and Stern;
2. Claim 2 is rejected over Warrington in view of MacDonald,
Wall, and Stern, and further in view of Turner;

3 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937

4
3. Claim 3 is rejected over Warrington in view of MacDonald,
Wall, and Stern, and further in view of Cote and Meadows;
4. Claim 4 is rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote and Meadows, and further in view of Turner;
5. Claim 5 is rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote, and Meadows, and further in view of Soich;
6. Claim 11 is rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, and Stern, and further in view of Mhoon;
7. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, and Stern, and further in view of Ward;
8. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected over Warrington in view
of Wall, MacDonald, Stern, Cote, Meadows, and Turner;
9. Claim 16 is rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote, Meadows, and Turner, and further in view of
Soich;
10. Claim 19 is rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote, Meadows, and Turner, and further in view of
Mhoon; and
11. Claim 20 is rejected over Warrington in view of Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote, Meadows, and Turner, and further in view of
Ward.
Final Act. 4–32.
OPINION
Appellant argues all pending claims as a group, based on the
limitation “each of the plurality of handgrips and the mesh overlapping each
Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937

5
other.” Appeal Br. 7–13. We select claim as representative of the group.
Claims 2–20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is obvious over the
combination of Warrington, MacDonald, Wall, and Stern. Final Act. 4–9.
The Examiner finds that Stern teaches a skimming screen for a swimming
pool filtration system, wherein the handle can be one or more tabs that
extend from the support frame, which meets the claim language “each of the
plurality of handgrips and the mesh overlapping each other.” Id. at 9.
Appellant’s argument for patentability is limited to the above
limitation.4 See Appeal Br. 7–8. Such argument is not persuasive.
Appellant identifies where in the figures of the ’937 Application one
can find support for “the plurality of handgrips 3, 31–32 and 33–34 overlap
two sides of the mesh 2.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added); see also ’937 Appl.,
FIGS. 1, 2, and 5. However, claim 1 does not recite that the handgrips
overlap two sides of the mesh, but rather states “each of the plurality of
handgrips and the mesh overlapping each other.” See Appeal Br. 16 (Claims
App.). Thus, the language of claim 1 is broader than Appellant’s argument,
and merely requires that overlapping of handgrip and mesh, but not the
configuration shown in Figures 1, 2, and 5. Appellant fails to establish the
existence of reversible error by the Examiner in finding that Stern teaches
the limitation.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner did not
reversibly err in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of

4 Appellant also argued against the Examiner’s objections to Figure 8, but
the objection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer. See Appeal Br. 13–
14 and Ans. 32.
Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937

6
Warrington, MacDonald, Wall, and Stern. Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 2–20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We draw Appellant’s attention to the Examiner’s comments at pages
33–34 of the Answer, suggesting features that may be patentable, should
Appellant wish to pursue prosecution of this application.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–10 103 Warrington, MacDonald, Wall, Stern 1, 6–10
2 103 Warrington, MacDonald, Wall, Stern, Turner 12
3 103
Warrington, MacDonald,
Wall, Stern, Cote,
Meadows
3
4 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote,
Meadows, Turner
4
5 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote,
Meadows, Soich
5
11 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern,
Mhoon
11
12, 13 103 Warrington, Wall, MacDonald, Stern, Ward 12, 13
14, 15, 17,
18 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote,
Meadows, Turner
14, 15,
17, 18
16 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote,
Meadows, Turner, Soich
16
Appeal 2019-004827
Application 14/954,937

7
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote,
Meadows, Turner,
Mhoon
19
20 103
Warrington, Wall,
MacDonald, Stern, Cote,
Meadows, Turner, Ward
20
Overall
Outcome 1–20
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED