Ex Parte Blocker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

10958449 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS L. BLOCKER, JOHN F. KAIDO, and
SCOTT A. HOLMBERG
____________

Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Douglas L. Blocker et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20, 22, 24-26,
31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, and 49-65, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

2
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “an upright vacuum cleaner
having a floor cleaning nozzle and an above-floor cleaning nozzle with a
valving system to switch the path of a vacuum source between the two
nozzles.” Spec. 1. Claims 53, 56, 60, and 63 are independent. Claim 53,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
53. A vacuum cleaner comprising:
a housing with a dirt storage chamber;
a cleaning head;
a cleaning attachment;
a first suction unit including a first motor;
a second suction unit including a second motor; and
a flow control valve in fluid communication with the dirt
storage chamber, the first suction unit and the second suction
unit, the flow control valve permitting both the first and second
motors to draw air from the cleaning head into the dirt storage
chamber when the flow control valve is in a first position, the
flow control valve blocking the first and second motors from
drawing air from the cleaning head into the dirt storage
chamber and permitting the second motor to draw air from the
cleaning attachment into the dirt storage chamber when the
flow control valve is in a second position.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Hoover US 1,936,761 Nov. 28, 1933
Martinec US 4,225,999 Oct. 7, 1980
Shipman US 5,134,752 Aug. 4, 1992
Kajihara US 6,079,077 Jun. 27, 2000
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 20, 22, 24-26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49-53, 56,
57, 60, 63, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kajihara, Shipman, and Martinec.
2. Claims 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, and 65 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kajihara, Shipman,
Martinec, and Hoover.
ANALYSIS
Rejection based on Kajihara, Shipman, and Martinec
Independent claims 53, 56, 60, and 63
Independent claim 53 calls for the flow control valve, when in a first
position, to permit both motors to draw air from the cleaning head, and when
in a second position, to block both motors from drawing air from the
cleaning head and to permit one of the motors to draw air from the cleaning
attachment. The remaining independent claims contain similar limitations.
The Examiner determined that Kajihara “discloses all of the structure
set forth in the independent claims 53, 56, 60 and 63 with the exception of a
second suction unit including a second motor for drawing air from the
cleaning head or a switch on the valve for turning off power to the second
motor of the second suction unit.” Ans. 3. The Examiner determined:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaning head
of Kajihara with a similar second suction unit, having a second
motor, to draw air form [sic, from] the cleaning head when in a
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

4
floor cleaning mode, as taught by Shipman, to increase the
suction power and cleaning efficiency of the vacuum cleaner.
Ans. 4. The Examiner also determined:
[I]t further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made that it would be
desirable to provide the valve of Kajihara, being the part that is
moved to permit airflow from the cleaning attachment into the
dirt storage chamber, with a similar switch to cut off power to
the second suction unit (first suction unit, as claimed in claims
19, 28 and 36) that draws air form [sic, from] the cleaning head,
to conserve energy and reduce unnecessary wear to floor
surfaces and unnecessary use and wear on the second suction
unit.
Ans. 5.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings as to the scope
and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the
claimed invention. Appellants also do not challenge the Examiner’s
articulated reasons to modify Kajihara’s vacuum with the teachings of
Shipman and Martinec. Rather, as noted by the Examiner in the Response to
Argument portion of the Answer, Appellants argue each of the cited
references individually and fail to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
proposed combination of the references. Ans. 9-14. We adopt the
Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments as our own.
In particular, Appellants present summaries of each of the references,
pointing out how each reference individually differs from the claimed
invention. Br. 18-25. These arguments fail to address the Examiner’s
rejection, which is based on a determination of what would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

5
of the prior art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation
omitted); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted).
With regard to the Examiner’s proposed combination, Appellants
argue that Kajihara’s switch valve 20 is an all-or-nothing valve so that even
if Kajihara were modified to have multiple motors, the valve 20 is incapable
of moving between positions that permit two motors to draw air from a
cleaning head in one position while blocking both motors from drawing air
from a cleaning head and permitting only one of the motors to draw air from
a cleaning attachment in another position. Br. 26. Appellants contend that
“Shipman and Martinec do not remedy this shortcoming of Kajihara.”
Br. 27. This argument, again, fails to account for the Examiner’s proposed
modifications to Kajihara’s vacuum based on the teachings of Shipman and
Martinec, and in particular the proposed modification to the valve of
Kajihara so that it turns off power to one of the motors when the valve is
turned to a position to use the cleaning attachment.
Appellants also argue that modifying either Shipman or Martinec with
the valve of Kajihara would prevent the vacuum cleaners of Shipman or
Martinec from operating as described. Br. 28-30. As the Examiner noted,
the rejection does not propose to modify either Shipman or Martinec.
Ans. 13. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Grounds of Rejection
and Response to Argument, we affirm the rejection of independent claims
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

6
53, 56, 60, and 63 as being unpatentable over Kajihara, Shipman, and
Martinec. We also affirm this rejection as to dependent claims 20, 24, 26,
31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, and 64, which were not separately
argued. Br. 45; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 22 and 25
Appellants argue that the subject matter of claims 22 and 25 is
patentable because Martinec does not describe a valve that engages a switch
to turn off power to a motor and disengages a switch to turn on power to a
motor. Br. 39-40. As noted by the Examiner, this argument fails to address
the Examiner’s proposed modification to the valve of Kajihara in light of the
teaching of Martinec. Ans. 14. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the
difference between normally open and normally closed switches is not a
patentable one. Id. As such, we affirm the rejection of claims 22 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 35, 43, and 51
Appellants argue that the subject matter of claims 35, 43, and 51 is
patentable because Kajihara’s flow control valve is not disposed in the same
housing as the dirt storage chamber. Br. 42-43. Kajihara discloses a dust
collecting case 7 is attached inside the front surface of main body 1, and a
dust collecting switching portion 9 includes a main body 23 and a cover 19,
within which is housed a switch valve 20. Kajihara, col. 4, ll. 17-18 and 41-
46. Kajihara discloses that “the wall at the back of main body 1 and main
body 23 may be formed integrally” or “dust collecting direction switching
portion 9 may be built in main body 1.” Kajihara, col. 4, ll. 63-65 and col. 5,
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

7
ll. 1-2. As such, Kajihara discloses that its flow control valve is disposed in
the same housing as the dirt storage chamber.
Appellants also argue that Kajihara’s control valve is not closer to the
handle than the cleaning head. Br. 43. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Figures 1 and 3 of Kajihara show the valve 20 closer to the
handle 6 than to the cleaning head 5. Ans. 15. As such, we affirm the
rejection of claims 35, 43, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 46
Appellants argue that claim 46 is patentable because Kajihara’s “valve
20 is not located along an airflow path extending between the motor 3 and
the dust collecting bag 14.” Br. 44. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, air
from duct 11 must pass through valve 20 prior to entering the dust collecting
bag 14. Kajihara, fig. 4. The Examiner also explained that, when modified
by the teachings of Shipman and Martinec, a first motor would be added to
the cleaning head 5 of Kajihara such that Kajihara’s valve 20 would be
located along an airflow path extending between this first motor and the dirt
storage chamber. Ans. 16. Appellants’ argument again fails to address the
Examiner’s proposed modification to Kajihara or to persuasively explain
why Kajihara’s valve 20 is not disposed along an airflow path between the
motor and the dirt storage chamber. As such, we affirm the rejection of
claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection based on Kajihara, Shipman, Martinec, and Hoover
In response to this second ground of rejection, Appellants rely on the
arguments raised for independent claims 53, 56, 60, and 63 and argue only
Appeal 2010-010192
Application 10/958,449

8
that “Hoover does not remedy any of the shortcomings of Kajihara,
Shipman, and Martinec that are set forth above.” Br. 45-46. Finding no
such shortcomings in the rejection of the independent claims, we affirm the
rejection of claims 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s proposed combination of Kajihara, Shipman, and
Martinec results in the flow control valve as claimed.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20, 22, 24-
26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, and 49-65.
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

hh