Ex Parte NittaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201311708977 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation