Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 2019

12636998 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/636,998 12/14/2009 27752 7590 02/15/2019 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christopher Lawrence Smith 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11205 2475 EXAMINER NGO,LIENM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2019 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): centraldocket.im @pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com mayer.jk@pg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE SMITH and BRIAN JOSEPH ROSELLE Appeal2017-009647 Application 12/636,998 1 Technology Center 3700 Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Procter & Gamble Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-009647 Application 12/636,998 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a dispensing system, such as for a clothes washing machine. Appellants appeal the rejection of dependent claims 5-7 which depend from claim 1 ( claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5). Claims 1 and 5 are reproduced below. 1. A modular fluid dispensing system configured to dispense at least one fluid to a machine wherein the machine comprises an aperture therein, the modular fluid dispensing system compnsmg: a module configured to be removably engaged with the aperture of the machine, wherein the module comprises: at least one receiving chamber configured to receive at least one container, the at least one container configured to receive the at least one fluid; at least one engagement key configured to be engaged with a receiver portion of the aperture; and a fluid extracting element defining a passage therethrough, wherein the fluid extracting element is configured to engage a portion of the at least one container to withdraw a portion of the at least one fluid from the at least one container into the passage and to the machine. 5. The modular fluid dispensing system of Claim 1 comprising a container authentication system configured to authenticate the at least one container. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Bongini (EP 1,884,584 A2, publ. Apr. 19, 2007). Claims 3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bongini and Bradford (US 7,784,310 B 1, iss. Aug. 31, 2010). 2 Appeal2017-009647 Application 12/636,998 OPINION Claims 1-4 and 8-10 Appellants not do address the rejections of claims 1--4 and 8-10. See generally, Br.; see also id. at 2 ("Only Claims 5-7 are appealed."). As such, we summarily affirm these rejections. Claims 5-7 Appellants argue the rejections of claims 5-7 together. We select claim 5 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that the laundry washing machine of Bongini teaches all of the features of independent claim 1. Final Act. 2. As noted above, these findings are uncontested. Concerning dependent claims 5-7, the Examiner finds that Bradford teaches a washing machine with a container authentication system, and the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to add a container authentication system to the system of Bongini "in order to determine if the container is authentic." Id. at 4; see also 2nd Ans. 3. Appellants argue that neither the protuberances 28, 30, 32, nor the RFID tag in Bradford teach a container authentication system. Br. 2. Concerning the protuberances, Appellants argue that: "The protuberances are passive static structures incapable of carrying out any action, including authenticating. As a result of the protuberances, only a reservoir of a particular shape fits in particular location in the [ washing] machine. The protuberances do not determine whether the particular reservoir is authentic." Br. 2. Concerning the RFID tag, Appellants argue that the RFID tag "is for conveying information about the container size ... [ and when 3 Appeal2017-009647 Application 12/636,998 used with] dosing history, would allow the [ washing] machine to provide supply level statistics and alerts to the user," rather than "providing information to the [ washing] machine to indicate that the reservoir is authentic." Id. Appellants are correct that Bradford teaches using the protuberances ensure that the correct reservoir or container is inserted in the washing machine and using the RFID tag for proper dosing. However, Bradford also teaches that "[ t ]his arrangement [ referring to at least the RFID tag and associated sensors] could also be used to hinder the use of imitation or counterfeit chemical products within the machine 10." Bradford 6: 15-1 7. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bradford teaches or at least suggests a "container authentication system configured to authenticate the at least one container" as required by claim 5. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4