Ex Parte Bensussan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 2013

11253310 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

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. 11/253,310 10/19/2005 Bernard Leon Bensussan 1331.063USU 2553 7590 08/27/2013 George W. Rauchfuss, Jr., Esq. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. 10th Floor One Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2682 EXAMINER CHIN, RANDALL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BERNARD LEON BENSUSSAN ____________________ Appeal 2011-009310 Application 11/253,310 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JOHN W. MORRISON, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009310 Application 11/253,310 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 9, 15, 18-21, 23, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. CLAIMED INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mop press comprising: a front wall; and a pair of side walls each having a top cam track, a bottom cam track, and a bucket slot, said bucket slot defining a shoulder, wherein said bottom cam track is positioned entirely below said shoulder and wherein said top cam tracks are defined by an upper most edge of said pair of side walls. REFERENCES Towne Wilen N/A US 697,223 US 5,974,621 EP 0 824 008 A2 Apr. 8, 1902 Nov. 2, 1999 Feb. 18, 1998 REJECTIONS1 Claims 1-8, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Towne. Claims 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by EP 0 824 008. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Towne and Wilen. 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the following rejections: (1) the rejection of claims 10-14, 21, 23, and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Towne; and (2) the rejection of claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the Filmop Price List. Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-009310 Application 11/253,310 3 ANALYSIS Anticipation by Towne Addressing claim 1, the Examiner finds that Towne discloses all of the recited claim limitations, including side walls “each having a top cam track (albeit that they are slots or openings but still broadly meets the recited language), a bottom cam track and a bucket slot, said bucket slot defining a shoulder (Fig. 1), wherein said bottom cam track is positioned entirely below said shoulder.” Ans. 4. Appellant counters that the claims recite “cam tracks”, not the general “tracks” as asserted. Second, Appellant submits that the plain language of the specification and claims of the present application make clear what the claimed “cam tracks” refer to such that it is simply unreasonable to assert that simple “perforations” of Towne disclose or suggest “cam tracks” as claimed. App. Br. 6. The Examiner further determines that “Towne's perforations and/or the upper most edge of the side walls A, A (Fig. 1) are at least deemed capable of serving as ‘[] cam tracks’ as recited in claim 1.” Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner. Not only are the top surface and perforations of Towne capable of being used as cam tracks, they are nearly identical to the cam tracks (24, 26) of Appellant’s invention. Next, Appellant argues that “said bottom cam track is positioned entirely below said shoulder and wherein said top cam tracks are defined by an upper most edge of said pair of side walls (emphasis added)”. Since no portion of Towne discloses or suggests a “cam track” at all, Towne clearly fails to disclose or suggest the positioning of these missing elements in the manner recited by claim 1. Appeal 2011-009310 Application 11/253,310 4 App. Br. 7. While we disagree that there is no disclosure of a “cam track,” the lowest opening is positioned entirely below the shoulder (see Towne, fig.1, top of the pail slot near the element ‘g’). As such, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that “said bottom cam track is positioned entirely below said shoulder” as required by claim 1. For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Towne. Claim 2 recites the additional claim elements of top and bottom cam followers. The Examiner finds there is a moveable press-plate B, b, b having a set of top cam followers and a set of bottom cam followers, each of said top cam tracks receiving a respective one of said set of top cam followers and each of said bottom cam tracks receiving a respective one of said set of bottom cam followers. Ans. 5. Appellant argues that “Towne lacks any cam tracks or cam followers at all.” App. Br. 6. While we do not agree with the entirety of this statement, the Examiner has failed to show any structure in Towne that would correspond to a bottom cam follower. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2, or claim 3-8 which depend therefrom. Claim 15 includes claim limitations that a “locking arm is moved from said locking position upon application of a force (F2) in the same direction as a force (F3) for removing the mop press from a bucket.” App. Br. 18, Claims App’x. Appellant argues “the combination of horizontal [F2] and vertical forces [F3] disclosed by Towne fails to disclose or suggest the force (F2) that is ‘in the same direction’ as the force (F3) as required by claim 15.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner responds Towne's locking arm G is deemed to move from said locking position upon application of a force (F2) (i.e., upwardly and outwardly, at least at a portion of the range of pivotal motion for locking arm G) in the same direction as a force (F3) for Appeal 2011-009310 Application 11/253,310 5 removing the mop press from a bucket (i.e., upwardly and outwardly) Ans. 11 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner. Appellant has mischaracterized the locking mechanism of Towne, and applying a force in the direction suggested by the Appellant would move the locking arm toward the locking position not from the locking position. The initial movement from the locking position is upward and outward in the same direction the mop press would be removed from the bucket. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s findings. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 and claims 18-20 which depend therefrom and are not separately argued. Anticipation by EP 0 824 008 Independent claim 21 is directed at the movement of the press plate. The claimed device places more compression on the top of a mop in a first zone, and then equally compresses the top and bottom of a mop in a third zone. The Examiner finds that EP 0 824 008 discloses first zone of movement (see Figs. 9 and 10) moves said press- plate 5 so that a top of said pressplate 5 is “substantially closer” (a broad phrase) to said front wall than a bottom of the press- plate (i.e., at least when moveable press-plate 5 has just been pushed and tilted as a result of the connecting rods 6 acting as toggles against the back of the pressplate as set forth in claim 1. Ans. 8. Appellant counters “Figures 9 and 10 of the ’008 publication . . . clearly illustrate that the presser 5 in both the initial and ending positions are ‘parallel[]’ to one another and that the slots 4 are linear and parallel, resulting in the ‘parallel[]’ movement.” App. Br. 14. We agree with Appellant. Claim 1 of EP 0 824 008, as cited by the Examiner, further recites “movable panel (5) that is pushed against one surface of the support Appeal 2011-009310 Application 11/253,310 6 wall (2) by exerting a parallel and horizontal pressure.” EP 0 824 008, p. 15. Thus, the Examiner’s argument that this publication teaches that the top of the pressplate is substantially closer to the wall than the bottom when the pressplate is in a first zone is not supported by the disclosure that only describes parallel horizontal movement along the cam tracks toward the front wall. As such, we do not sustain the rejection claim 21, and claims 23 and 25 which depend therefrom. Obviousness over Towne and Wilen Claim 9 depends from claim 2. Appellant presents the same arguments that address the deficiencies of the underlying claim 2. App. Br. 7. None of the Examiner’s findings related to Wilen cure the deficiency of Towne’s failure to disclose a set of bottom cam followers. Ans. 8-9. For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Towne and Wilen. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 15 and 18-20 is affirmed, and the decision to reject claims 2-9, 21, 23, and 25 is reversed. 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-IN-PART mls