Adel Checri

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 18, 2021

2020006413 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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. 15/099,284 04/14/2016 Adel Edouard Checri 006910.6271 3464 5073 7590 10/18/2021 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER LEE, DOUGLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2021 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): PTOmail1@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADEL EDOUARD CHECRI Appeal 2020-006413 Application 15/099,284 Technology Center 1700 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5–7, 9–14, and 17–20. We have jurisdiction. 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. The Appeal Brief does not identify the real party in interest. Appeal 2020-006413 Application 15/099,284 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a rotatable tail brush used to clean a pool and a tail sweep comprising such a brush. See, e.g., independent claims 5 and 11. Appeal Br. 12, 14 (Claims Appendix). According to the Specification, “[t]echnical advantages . . . may include better surface scrubbing and increased lifetime due to the rotation of the brush.” Spec. 3:12–14. This is because conventional scrubbers, e.g., sponges, that are typically installed on a tail sweep hose are purportedly “substantially stationary and do not rotate around the hose,” resulting in uneven wear and frequent replacement unless such scrubbers are manually adjusted. Id. at 6:1–16. Claim 5 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below with the key limitation on appeal italicized for emphasis: 5. A tail sweep for cleaning a pool, comprising: a hose, the hose comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is operable to be coupled to an automated pool cleaner; at least one ring disposed around the hose; a brush comprising; an emission hole configured to expel liquid; an at least partially hollow body defining a mouth and a conduit, wherein: the mouth has a first diameter that is greater in size than a diameter of the at least one ring; the conduit extends from an interior portion of the mouth to the emission hole; and a plurality of bristles projecting from the at least partially hollow body; a means for coupling the brush to the at least one ring in a manner that facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose, wherein the means for coupling is configured to: Appeal 2020-006413 Application 15/099,284 3 deform from a static shape to a deformed shape to allow passage of the ring and the second end of the hose into the mouth; and retake the static shape upon the passage of the ring and the second end of the hose, whereby retaking the static shape retains the ring and the second end of the hose within the mouth. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also rejects claims 5–7, 9–14, and 17–20 as unpatentable over Bloink,2 Proffit,3 and Stephenson,4 either with or without additional prior art.5 Final Act. 3–8. OPINION Indefiniteness Rejection The Examiner rejects dependent claims 9 and 10 as indefinite for reciting “the plurality of rings” because claim 5 from which these claims depend only requires a singular ring. Final Act. 2. Because Appellant advances no argument on appeal regarding this rejection, we summarily sustain it. 2 US 2012/0255579 A1, published October 11, 2012. 3 US 3,872,533, issued March 25, 1975. 4 US 4,356,582, issued November 2, 1982. 5 US 2010/0011521 A1, published January 21, 2010 (Collins); US 6,119,707, issued September 19, 2000 (Jordan). Appeal 2020-006413 Application 15/099,284 4 Obviousness Rejections Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner finds that Bloink discloses the required “means for coupling the brush to the at least one ring in a manner that facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose” of independent claim 5. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Bloink also discloses a substantially similar limitation recited in independent claim 11. Id. at 5–6. To support these factual findings, the Examiner points to purported structural similarities of the coupling means described in the Specification and those disclosed by Bloink. Final Act. 4–6. Specifically, the Examiner maps the claimed “ring” to that depicted “around the exit end 30” in Bloink’s Figure 2 (reproduced below). Final Act. 3. Bloink’s Figure 2 illustrates deflector assembly 34 with scrubber 42 and “generally cylindrical” deflector 38 fitted to a ring encircling hose exit 30. Bloink ¶¶ 24–26. Appellant argues that Bloink’s deflector 38 is attached to the hose in a manner that is “tight fitting that does not allow for movement.” Appeal Br. 6. Thus, according to Appellant, Bloink does not disclose the claimed Appeal 2020-006413 Application 15/099,284 5 “means for coupling the brush to the at least one ring in a manner that facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose.” Appeal Br. 5–7. In response, the Examiner notes that the “means for coupling” limitation falls under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and then points to Appellant’s Specification which discloses various “means for coupling” such as “bolts, buttons, buckles, ties, clamps, clasps, nails, pegs, slots and/or screws, or other means such as adhesives, tapes, magnets or an extension of the mouth, such as teeth.” Ans. 4. After considering the opposing positions of Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence supporting the obviousness rejections. Specifically, there is insufficient evidence supporting a finding that Bloink’s ring at hose end 30 has the ability to rotate about the hose. Here, the Examiner acknowledges that such ring rotation about a hose is one possible way to “facilitate[] rotation,” but does not then establish that Bloink discloses a ring that rotates. See Ans. 5 (“The ‘in a manner that facilitates rotation of the brush about the hose’ recitation is understood to mean and include that the coupling means is able to couple to a rotatable ring without interfering with or preventing the rotation of the ring.” (emphases added)). Moreover, even if such ring rotation would not be required to “facilitate[] rotation of the brush about the hose” as required by the independent claims, the Examiner has not established that Bloink’s deflector 38 is capable of rotating about the ring at exit 30. Indeed, Bloink appears silent on this point and only indicates that deflector 38 is “snap-fitt[ed] . . . onto exit 30.” Bloink ¶ 26. Here, we agree with Appellant that “[t]he application of a prior art reference to a means- (or step-) plus-function Appeal 2020-006413 Application 15/099,284 6 limitation requires that the prior art element perform the identical function specified in the claim.” Reply Br. 5 (quoting MPEP § 2182). On this record, there is insufficient evidence supporting a finding that Bloink’s deflector 38 is attached to hose exit 30 “in a manner that facilitates rotation . . . about the hose” as required by each independent claim. We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 5–7, 9–14, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 9, 10 112(b) Indefiniteness 9, 10 5, 6, 9–12, 18 103 Bloink, Proffit, Stephenson 5, 6, 9–12, 18 7, 13, 14, 17 103 Bloink, Proffit, Stephenson, Collins 7, 13, 14, 17 19, 20 103 Bloink, Proffit, Stephenson, Jordan 19, 20 Overall Outcome 9, 10 5–7, 11– 14, 17–20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART