Ex Parte Goff

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2013

11859255 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEAN K. GOFF ____________ Appeal 2011-004832 Application 11/859,255 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004832 Application 11/859,255 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Sean K. Goff (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over R.P.S.,2 and either Bashyam (US 4,989,293; iss. Feb. 5, 1991), or Rau (US 2006/0048331 A1, pub. Mar. 9, 2006), and Laing (US 3,177,794; iss. Apr. 13, 1965), Kamikawa (US 6,495,215 B1; iss. Dec. 17, 2002) and Mein (US 2005/0183231 A1, pub. Aug. 25, 2005). Claims 11-19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 6 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “floor cleaning equipment for use in industrial and commercial environments.” Spec., para. [0003]; figs. 1, 5 and 6. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A floor cleaning apparatus comprising: a chassis having a forward end and a rearward end; a plurality of floor engaging wheels supporting said chassis above a floor; a first tank supported by said chassis for holding a cleaning solution that is dispensed onto the floor; a second tank supported by said chassis for holding cleaning solution recovered from the floor; a vacuum source in fluid communication with said second tank draws recovered cleaning solution into said second tank and leaves a film of cleaning solution on the 1 We note that independent claim 20 is not subject to this Appeal. See Br. 1 2 Non-Patent Literature: R.P.S. Corporation, FACTORY CAT, 290/350 Series, Operator Parts Manual, 1-46 (Nov. 23, 2005). Appeal 2011-004832 Application 11/859,255 3 floor; a diffuser supported by said chassis directing gas toward the floor along substantially the entire width of said chassis to evaporate cleaning solution dispensed from said first tank and not recovered by said vacuum source; and a gas source exhausting a gas into said diffuser at a first pressure, and said diffuser exhausting said gas out of openings of said diffuser at rate that maintains a positive pressure in said diffuser no greater than said first pressure to ensure said gas is evenly distributed through said openings without disrupting efficiency of said gas source. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a floor cleaning apparatus including a diffuser exhausting a gas at a rate that maintains a positive pressure in the diffuser no greater than the first pressure to ensure the gas is evenly distributed without disrupting efficiency of the gas source. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner found that the combination of R.P.S. and either Bashyam or Rau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except, a gas source exhausting a gas into a diffuser at a first pressure, and the diffuser exhausting the gas out of openings of the diffuser at a rate that maintains a positive pressure in the diffuser no greater than the first pressure to ensure the gas is evenly distributed through the openings without disrupting efficiency of the gas source. Ans. 4. The Examiner cited Laing for the disclosure of “a diffuser (19) with a plurality of openings (15).” Id. at 5 (citing Laing, figs. 1-3); see also id. at 10. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of R.P.S. with the known technique of providing a diffuser having Appeal 2011-004832 Application 11/859,255 4 openings, as taught by Laing, “[to] increase the diffuser efficiency while also reducing the amount of power consumed by the other components and further to provide a diffuser that dries more surface area during operation.” Id.; see also id. at 10. The Examiner cited Kamikawa for disclosing that “it is old and well known in the art to supply a gas [source 23 or 24] to a diffuser [21] at a first pressure.” Id. at 12; see also id. at 5. The Examiner further cited Mein for disclosing that it is well known in the art “to use variable pressure valves (96 or 98, Figure 4) (Paragraph 62) on an outlet portion (68) of a diffuser (62).” Id. at 5. The Examiner determined that “these valves [i.e., valves 96 or 98 of Mein] could adjust the pressure leaving the diffuser such that a pressure leaving said diffuser is not greater than a first pressure entering said diffuser.” Id. at 5-6. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device, of R.P.S., with the known technique of drying a surface by using a gas source that exhausts gas into a diffuser at a first pressure and said diffuser exhausting said gas at [a] rate to maintain a positive pressure in said diffuser no greater than said first pressure by using adjustable valves, as taught by Kamikawa and Mein, . . . [to] provide a more versatile device that can easily, quickly and more accurately control the flow of gas as needed thereby more effectively drying the surface during operation. Id. at 6. Appellant argues that Mein fails to teach or suggest “the diffuser-gas source configuration called for in claim 1 that includes openings of the diffuser that maintain a positive pressure in said diffuser no greater than the first pressure to ensure that the gas is evenly distributed through the Appeal 2011-004832 Application 11/859,255 5 openings without disrupting efficiency of the gas source.” Br. 9. Appellant contends that the valves (96, 98) [of Mein] are placed in-line to vary either the water pressure or air pressure, depending upon the mode of operation . . . . Thus, the valves (96, 98) [of Mein] are only capable of adjusting the pressure supplied by the vacuum unit (62) to a downstream component, similar to the flow meters of Kamikawa. Id. at 8-9 (citing Mein, paras. [0054], [0055] and [0062]). Appellant further argues that “the valves (96, 98) [of] Mein will negatively impact the operation of the vacuum unit (62), as even a partially closed valve will reduce the efficiency of the vacuum unit (62).” Id. at 9 Mein discloses a washer and vacuum system that includes “an assembly that can discharge air by positive air pressure . . . which occurs during the blowing operation.” See Mein, para. [0004]. Mein further discloses (1) “[w]hen vacuuming, instead of blowing, the second 74 and third 96 valves are open, and the first 72 and fourth 98 valves are closed” (see Mein, para. [0054], fig. 3); (2) “[w]hen blowing, instead of vacuuming, the first 72 and fourth 98 valves are open, and the second 74 and third 96 valves are closed” (see Mein, para. [0055], fig. 4) and (3) “the vacuum unit’s 62 vacuum and blower air pressure can be varied” (see Mein, para. [0062]). In view of Mein’s disclosure, we agree with the Examiner’s position that adjustable pressure valves 96, 98 of Mein could be used to more accurately control the flow of gas by adjusting the pressure leaving the diffuser such that a pressure leaving the diffuser is not greater than a first pressure entering the diffuser. However, the Examiner has failed to make any findings on the record or articulate any technical reasoning to explain Appeal 2011-004832 Application 11/859,255 6 how use of the adjustable pressure valves 96, 98 of Mein would ensure the gas is evenly distributed without disrupting efficiency of the gas source. Hence, the Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mein discloses a diffuser exhausting a gas at a rate that maintains a positive pressure in the diffuser no greater than a first pressure to ensure the gas is evenly distributed without disrupting efficiency of the gas source, as called for in claim 1. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 as unpatentable over R.P.S. and either Bashyam or Rau and Laing, Kamikawa and Mein cannot be sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner as to claims 1-5 and 7- 10. REVERSED hh