KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

2019002994 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
14/432,518 03/31/2015 JOHANNES TSEARD VAN DER KOOI 2012P001665WOUS 8010
24737 7590 09/16/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
MULLER, BRYAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHANNES TSEARD VAN DER KOOI, BRITT ROUMEN,
PIETER KINGMA, and MATTHIJS HENDRIKUS LUBBERS

Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, 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 rejecting claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–21. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 3. Citations herein refer to the Appeal
Brief dated August 23, 2018.
Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A nozzle arrangement for a cleaning device for
cleaning a surface, said nozzle arrangement comprising:
- a nozzle housing having an opening defined by a
plurality of sides;
- a single brush mounted in the nozzle housing and
arranged to be rotated about a brush axis, said brush comprising
a substantially cylindrical hollow core element having a
plurality of distributed liquid-passage openings formed through
a circumferential wall thereof and supporting a continuous array
of flexible brush elements extending radially from a
circumferential surface of the core element, said brush elements
being arranged to extend through the nozzle housing opening to
contact the surface to be cleaned and to pick up dirt particles
and liquid from said surface during rotation of the brush;
- a first one of said sides extending in a longitudinal
direction substantially parallel to the brush axis, said first side
being located where the brush elements leave the nozzle
housing during rotation of the brush and projecting so as to
contact ends of the brush elements during said rotation;
- a wiping element for moving the dirt particles and
liquid along the surface to be cleaned during movement of the
cleaning device, said wiping element being arranged on a
second longitudinally extending one of the sides defining the
nozzle housing opening where the brush elements re-enter the
nozzle housing during rotation of the brush, said second side
being spaced apart from said re-entering brush elements to
define a suction inlet for vacuuming the dirt particles and liquid
from the surface to be cleaned;
- at least one side-sealing element arranged for at
least partially sealing a first lateral one of the sides defining the
nozzle housing opening, said at least one side-sealing element
being spaced apart from an end of the core element such that a
gap is formed between said end of the core element and said at
least one side-sealing element; and
Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

3
- a liquid supply arrangement configured to supply
cleansing liquid into the cylindrical core element for passage
through the plurality of distributed liquid-passage openings in
said core element to wet the flexible brush elements and from at
least one opening facing the at least one side-sealing element
and aimed to direct cleansing fluid into said gap.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Erickson US 2,293,722 Aug. 25, 1942
Noble US 2,949,620 Aug. 23, 1960
Waldhauser US 4,817,233 Apr. 4, 1989
Sepke US 5,475,893 Dec. 19, 1995
Delmas et al. (“Delmas”) US 5,722,109 Mar. 3, 1998
De Wit et al. (“De Wit”) US 2013/0025077 A1 Jan. 31, 2013

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16–19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Waldhauser, Noble, Erickson, and
Official Notice.2
II. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waldhauser, Noble, Erickson, Sepke, and Official Notice.
III. Claims 13, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waldhauser, Noble, Erickson, De Wit, and Official
Notice.
IV. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Waldhauser, Noble, Erickson, Delmas, and Official Notice.

2 Although Official Notice is omitted from the paragraph identifying the
sources of teachings for the rejection of the independent claims (claims 1
and 14) in the Appeal, the Examiner’s reliance upon Official Notice is stated
in the accompanying text. See Final 2–3.
Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that independent claims 1 and 14 stand rejected
erroneously, because the cited references and Official Notice fails to teach or
suggest the following limitation, which appears in both of the independent
claims: “a liquid supply arrangement configured to supply cleansing liquid
into the cylindrical core element for passage . . . from at least one opening
facing the at least one side-sealing element and aimed to direct cleansing
fluid into said gap.” See Appeal Br. 16–24, Reply Br. 8–11.
As recited in, e.g., claim 1, the “gap” is formed from the spaced-apart
relationship between “an end of the [substantially cylindrical hollow] core
element [of the brush]” and “at least one side-sealing element arranged for at
least partially sealing a first lateral one of the sides defining the nozzle
housing opening.”
According to the Examiner, the combination of Waldhauser and
Official Notice suggest the formation of the claimed “gap.” Final 2–3.
The Examiner relies on the Noble reference, for claim 1’s recitation of
“a liquid supply arrangement configured to supply cleansing liquid into the
cylindrical core element for passage . . . from at least one opening facing the
at least one side-sealing element and aimed to direct cleansing fluid into said
gap.” See id. at 3–5.
Noble discloses a “handle-mounted sponge-mop to which fresh wash
water is supplied interiorly and from which dirty water is exhausted
exteriorly.” Noble col. 1, ll. 38–40. In operation, fresh wash water passes
Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

5
through “rigid metal tubes 24,” that “rotatably support . . . bearings 28 which
are fixed to a perforate cylindrical metal tube 29 carrying a porous
cylindrical sponge 30 of cellulosic material or the like,” wherein “[t]he
portions of the rigid tubes 24 inside the metal tube 29 and sponge 30 are also
perforated.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–8. Further, “[t]he bearings 28 are also
perforated with holes 38 in order to admit air into the metal tube 29 during
evacuation of the sponge 30 by contact with a shoe 35” that is perforated and
is in communication with a vacuum device, “so that air and dirty water may
be sucked up therethrough.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 8–17. These features are shown
in Noble’s Figure 2, which is reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

6
Figure 2 is a vertical section and partial cutaway drawing of Noble’s sponge
mop. See id. at col. 1, ll. 49–50.
The Examiner acknowledges that Noble does not disclose the egress
of liquid from Noble’s metal tube 29 (to which the Examiner maps the
claimed “core”) through holes 38. Final 4. Nevertheless, the Examiner
finds that such outward passage of liquid through Noble’s holes 38 would
occur inherently:
[T]he brush core of Noble is further discloses [sic] to include
additional apertures (38) on a transverse side of the brush core
to allow airflow into the brush core for improved fluid flow
through the brush, which will be inherently capable of allowing
fluid to exit through the side apertures and thus further supply
liquid to the gap between the brush core and the sealing
elements.
Id. at 4. See also Answer 5–6. According to the Examiner: “Although
Noble discloses that the axial openings [38] are intended for allowing
airflow into the core when suction is applied to the mop, the openings would
also inherently allow liquid to flow outward due to the location adjacent to
the outer wall of the core.” Answer 6. The Examiner finds that Noble’s
holes 38 “would be inherently capable of releasing at least some liquid
laterally from the core, particularly if/when the brush is slowly rotating.” Id.
at 5.
The Appellant argues that Noble is not inherently configured for the
identified holes 38 of to emit cleaning liquid into the “gap” between the
“core” and a “side-sealing element,” per claim 1. See Appeal Br. 22–23,
Reply Br. 8–11.
Our reviewing court has defined the requirements for determining
whether a limitation is inherent:
Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

7
Inherency can be established when “prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed
limitations.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343,
1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Inherency, however, may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that
a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient.” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).
Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Whether liquid would pass out of Noble’s metal tube 29, through
holes 38, would depend upon various factors, including the rate of liquid
flowing through rigid tubes 24. Notably, Noble’s Figure 2 shows structures
that impede any egress of fluid through holes 38 and out of metal tube 29 to
where the Examiner locates the claimed “gap.” For example, holes 38
(which pass through the bearings 28) are spaced radially inward from the
inner wall of tube 29 and, furthermore, holes 38 are inset from the ends of
tube 29. The Examiner maintains that the holes are “inherently capable of
releasing at least some liquid laterally from the core, particularly if/when the
brush is slowly rotating” (Answer 5), but the Examiner does not adequately
articulate the conditions required for such passage of fluid to occur — let
alone explain whether the necessary conditions are disclosed in Noble.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1, because the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that
the cited prior art and Official Notice teach or suggest the claimed “liquid
supply arrangement configured to supply cleansing liquid into the cylindrical
core element for passage . . . from at least one opening facing the at least one
side-sealing element and aimed to direct cleansing fluid into said gap.” The
same analysis applies to claim 14 (the only other independent claim in the
Appeal), which includes an identical limitation.
Appeal 2019-002994
Application 14/432,518

8
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–3, 5–9, and
11–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8, 9,
11, 12, 14,
16–19
103(a) Waldhauser,
Noble, Erickson,
Official Notice
1–3, 5, 8,
9, 11, 12,
14, 16–19
6, 7 103(a) Waldhauser,
Noble, Erickson,
Sepke,
Official Notice
6, 7
13, 20, 21 103(a) Waldhauser,
Noble, Erickson,
De Wit,
Official Notice
13, 20, 21
15 103(a) Waldhauser,
Noble, Erickson,
Delmas,
Official Notice
15
Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–9,
11–21

REVERSED