2021001326 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021)

Magnatronix Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 27, 2021

2021001326 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021)

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. 15/898,831 02/19/2018 Tate RC Mayo 4025.0 3542 22497 7590 08/27/2021 LARSON AND LARSON 11199 69TH STREET NORTH LARGO, FL 33773 EXAMINER LEE, CHEE-CHONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2021 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): frank@larsonpatentlaw.com ipdocket@larsonpatentlaw.com patents@larsonpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TATE RC MAYO Appeal 2021-001326 Application 15/898,831 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BRETT C. MARTIN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant, Magnatronix Corporation,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–12. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies itself as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001326 Application 15/898,831 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification’s disclosure “relates to the field of irrigation systems and more particularly to an irrigation coupling having an integral filter.” Spec. 1:3–4. The Claims Claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–12 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other claims are pending. Id. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below. 1. An irrigation coupling for connecting a secondary irrigation line to a main irrigation line, the coupling comprising: a first barbed end; a second barbed end; a channel passing through a center of the irrigation fitting; and an integral filter fixed in position within the channel; the integral filter is disposed within the first barbed end; wherein the integral filter blocks debris from entering the secondary irrigation line. Appeal Br. Claims App. 1. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over US 3,926,375, issued Dec. 16, 1975 (“Reeder”) and US 2004/0200781 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004 (“Shaw”). DISCUSSION Appellant argues the patentability of all claims together. Appeal Br. 7–11. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of Appeal 2021-001326 Application 15/898,831 3 rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Reeder discloses a “weeper irrigation device.” Reeder Abstract. The Examiner found that Reeder discloses the subject matter of claim 1 save the recitation that “the integral filter is disposed within the first barbed end.” Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Reeder 4:26–29, 4:50–53, Figs. 2–4). Shaw discloses a “simple coupling device which diverts water from a gutter to a garden hose.” Shaw Abstract. The Examiner found that Shaw teaches “wherein the integral filter is disposed within the first connecting end” of the coupling device. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Shaw Figs. 1–10). The Examiner determined: [I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the integral screen filter within the first connecting (barbed) end, as taught by Shaw, to Reeder’s integral filter, in order to provide a simple yet effective device (Paragraphs [0016]-[0021]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the filter from the middle of the channel to within the first barbed end. It has been held that rearranging (relocating) parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Id. Appellant argues that “the teachings of the prior art undermine the reasoning for the combination.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant explains that “[t]aking the filter of Shaw and adding it to the fitting of Reeder results in an inoperable device, with a filter screen blocking the action of the balls.” Appeal Br. 8. To illustrate its point, Appellant reproduces Reeder Figure 2 Appeal 2021-001326 Application 15/898,831 4 overlaid with the Shaw filter from Shaw Figure 4. Id. As can be seen in Shaw Figure 4, Shaw’s filter has a dome shape. In Appellant’s combination figure, Appellant has positioned the Shaw filter such that its dome would physically interfere with the intended movement of spherical valve member 30 of Reed. Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. “Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference.” Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Moreover, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellant’s next, and last, argument is that the Examiner’s rejection relies on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 9. This is so, Appellant argues, because “the examiner does not explain why it would be obvious to move the filter to within an end of the barbed fitting — a placement the prior art fails to disclose.” Id. This argument is also not persuasive of Examiner error. It is true that neither reference alone teaches placing a filter in an end of a barbed fitting. But Reeder teaches a barbed end, Shaw teaches an end with a filter, and the rejection is based on their combined teachings. Non-Final Act. 4 (“[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Appeal 2021-001326 Application 15/898,831 5 effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the integral screen filter within the first connecting (barbed) end, as taught by Shaw, to Reeder’s integral filter, in order to provide a simple yet effective device (Paragraphs [0016]-[0021]).”); see In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”). Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s articulated, reasoning, namely, to provide a simple yet effective device. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but they do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as well as that of claims 2–5, 7, 8, and 10–12, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7, 8, 10–12 103 Reeder, Shaw 1–5, 7, 8, 10–12 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). AFFIRMED