Ex Parte Caillot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13469546 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
13/469,546 05/11/2012 Gerald Caillot 17102/098001 1050
22511 7590
OSHA LIANG L.L.P.
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
EXAMINER
JENNINGS, MICHAEL DEANGILO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
escobedo @ oshaliang. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD CAILLOT
Appeal 2017-003284
Application 13/469,546
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
9, 10, and 13—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-003284
Application 13/469,546
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a wiping device for a motor vehicle glass
surface. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
A wiper device for a glazed surface of a motor vehicle,
comprising:
an actuator arm adapted to be connected to a windshield
wiper;
a liquid feed pipe carried by the actuator arm;
at least one sprayer having at least one spray orifice; and
a connector adapted to be inserted into the liquid feed pipe,
wherein the at least one sprayer is fastened to the actuator
arm such that a position of the at least one sprayer relative to the
actuator arm is fixed,
wherein the actuator arm includes a longitudinal bracket,
a casing embellisher, and a support mount,
wherein the at least one sprayer is directly fastened to the
casing embellisher of the actuator arm, and
wherein the casing embellisher is fastened to the
longitudinal bracket.
REJECTION
Claims 1,9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over to LeFrancois (French Publication
2,758,781 Al, published July 31, 1998) and Redifer (US 3,790,083, issued
Feb. 5, 1974).
OPINION
Appellant argues the rejection based on claims 1,15, and 16.
Initially, Appellant’s Appeal Brief asserts that several portions of the
Examiner’s rejection are unclear. See App. Br. 11—12. it is noted that it is
2
Appeal 2017-003284
Application 13/469,546
preferable to resolve any lack of clarity in the Examiner’s rejection by way
of interview or petition under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.104, 1.181 prior to taking an
appeal.
The Examiner cites bracket 14 of Redifer to meet the limitations of
claims 1 and 15 calling for a “longitudinal bracket.” Appellant correctly
argues (App. Br. 14—15) that the Examiner’s interpretation of longitudinal is
unreasonably broad because it ignores the inherent meaning of the term
longitudinal. Longitudinal need not be expressly defined (see Ans. 11) to
carry the ordinary and customary meaning of along a length or in an objects
longest direction. See MPEP §2111.01. The Examiner has not established
that any aspect of bracket 14 would be reasonably understood by one skilled
in the art as “longitudinal.”
Regarding the recited “casing embellisher” of claims 1 and 15, we
understand the Examiner’s reference to the “portion overlaying support (15)
and connected to bracket (14) in FIG. 2” of Redifer (Final Act. 3) (emphasis
omitted) to refer to the portions of members 36 and 37 of bracket 14 that are
horizontally oriented when viewed in Figure 3 of Redifer. Appellant
correctly argues (App. Br. 15—16) that the Examiner has failed to
demonstrate any reasonable basis to dissect bracket 14 along these
seemingly arbitrary demarcations. Further, the Examiner has failed to
establish that the referenced portion of bracket 14 embellishes1 any casing,
as claimed. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those
skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Although this phrase is broad, the Examiner has not provided
1 Examples of embellishment are discussed at Spec. 9:30-39.
3
Appeal 2017-003284
Application 13/469,546
any evidence or reasoning to demonstrate why one skilled in the automotive
arts would regard the cited portion of Redifer’s bracket 14 as the recited
“casing embellisher.”
Regarding the “directly fastened” limitation of claim 1, spacing
between the structure regarded by the Examiner as the “casing embellisher”
and the “sprayer” (13in Redifer) is clearly evident in Figure 3 of Redifer.
The fact that the structure regarded by the Examiner as the “casing
embellisher” is connected to the bracket in a manner that provides stability
to the sprayer 13 (Ans. 12) does not make the structure regarded by the
Examiner as the “casing embellisher” directly connected to the sprayer.
App. Br. 17—19. As is the case here, stability can be provided by indirect
connections.
Regarding the “spoiler shaped” limitation of claim 15, we cannot
agree with the Examiner that those skilled in the automotive arts would
consider any surface capable of deflecting wind “spoiler shaped.” See Ans.
13. The Examiner provides no evidence regarding the ordinary and
customary shape of spoilers and thus the ordinary and customary meaning of
the term “spoiler shaped” in the automotive arts. App. Br. 20—21. Again,
although this term is broad, when the Examiner’s interpretation is not
apparent based on the findings of the cited prior art it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to provide evidence or reasoned explanation to demonstrate why
the Examiner’s proposed construction of a phrase or term comports with that
one skilled in the art would reach. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (explaining that there must be some concrete evidence in the
record to support the Examiner’s factual findings and legal conclusions);
Accord In re Warner 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967) (“[T]he precise
4
Appeal 2017-003284
Application 13/469,546
language of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that ‘(a) person shall be entitled to a patent
unless, ’ concerning novelty and unobviousness, clearly places a burden of
proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection cannot be
sustained on the basis set forth by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
5