Ex Parte Nitta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

11708977 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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.
11/708,977 02/20/2007 Alfred T. Nitta 05115.111 3051
41689 7590 07/22/2013
BRADLEY P. HEISLER
HEISLER & ASSOCIATES
3017 DOUGLAS BOULEVARD, SUITE 300
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
EXAMINER
FRANCIS, FAYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2013 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 ALFRED T. NITTA
____________________

Appeal 2011-005048
Application 11/708,977
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005048
Application 11/708,977
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alfred T. Nitta (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) on
page 4 of the Specification and either Sabol (US 7,081,171 B1, iss. Jul. 25,
2006) or Ricciardelli (US 5,566,890, iss. Oct. 22, 1996). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A dust control system for a straw blowing machine,
comprising in combination:
a straw inlet;
a shredder downstream from said inlet;
a blower fan downstream from said shredder;
a discharge chute downstream from said blower fan;
a source of water;
at least one water inlet coupled to said source of water;
and
said water inlet adapted to apply water to the straw
sufficient to adhere any adjacent dust to the straw, said water
inlet located between said straw inlet and an outlet tip of
said discharge chute.

OPINION
The Examiner acknowledges that the AAPA does not disclose water
inlets (or applying water), as called for in independent claims 1, 11, and 16.
Ans. 3. Relying on a finding that Sabol and Ricciardelli “teach the concept
of providing a dispensing device with water inlets before during and after
the granulation process which inherently apply water to the straw sufficient
Appeal 2011-005048
Application 11/708,977
3
to adhere any adjacent dust to the straw,” the Examiner determines it would
have been obvious to provide the AAPA “with a plurality of water inlets as
taught by either Sabol or [Ricciardelli] in order to prevent the production of
airborne particles.” Id. The Examiner further states, “the Sabol and
[Ricciardelli] references have been applied only to show that it is
conventional to use a plurality of water inlets for spraying water in order to
prevent the production of airborne particles.” Ans. 4.
Appellant is correct that Sabol and Ricciardelli do not teach what the
Examiner cites them to teach. Reply Br. 2. Appellant correctly points out
that Sabol and Ricciardelli both disclose spray wash devices for removing
soluble matter from the ground material. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4; see
Sabol, col. 1, ll. 25-27; id. at col. 4, ll. 63-65; Ricciardelli, col. 2, ll. 13-15;
id. at col. 3, ll. 37-39. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Sabol and
Ricciardelli’s water inlets would inherently apply water to the straw
sufficient to adhere any adjacent dust to the straw is incorrect. Further,
Sabol and Ricciardelli do not teach spraying water in order to prevent the
production of airborne particles. See Reply Br. 2.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s articulated reason for
combining the AAPA with the teachings of Sabol or Ricciardelli does not
have a rational underpinning. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and of their dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-
15, and 17-20.

Appeal 2011-005048
Application 11/708,977
4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-20 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh