Ex Parte Vosbikian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2014

12700041 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER S. VOSBIKIAN and VINCE CELLA
____________________

Appeal 2012-006612
Application 12/700,041
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter S. Vosbikian and Vince Cella (“Appellants”) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of twice-rejected claims 1–34. Appeal Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-006612
Application 12/700,041

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellants’ invention is directed to a cleaning device. See Spec.
1. Claims 1, 21, and 30 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with emphasis on the relevant claim limitation.
1. A cleaning implement, comprising:
a base member having opposing top and bottom surfaces
and at least one side surface;
a handle connected to the top surface of the base
member;
a first cleaning material attached to the bottom surface of
the base member;
a cleaning member rotatably connected to the at least one
side surface of the base member; and
a second cleaning material attached to the cleaning
member, wherein the second cleaning material is oriented in a
different plane than the first cleaning material.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1, 5, 6, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Szopo (US 3,451,092, issued June 24, 1969);
(ii) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Szopo in view of Balducci (US 5,485,648, issued Jan. 23, 1996);
(iii) claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Szopo in view of Coleman (US 2004/0031116 A1, published Feb. 19, 2004);
(iv) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Szopo in view of Fernandez (US 6,606,756 B2, issued Aug. 19, 2003);
(v) claims 7–9, 11–16, and 21–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Szopo in view of Yamada (US 6,385,808 B1, issued
May 14, 2002); and
App
App

Szop
2003
clean
oppo
and a
base
Exam
Answ
11 an

1 Par
2 Ref
appe
Non
“firs
eal 2012-0
lication 12
(vi) cl
o in view
).
Clai
In reject
ing imple
sing top a
first clea
member.1
iner anno
er.2 Id. a
The Exa
The ann
d “first cl

enthetical
erence nu
ar in the o
etheless, th
t cleaning
06612
/700,041
aim 10 und
of Yamad
ms 1, 5, 6,
ing claim
ment comp
nd bottom
ning mate
See Answ
tated a po
t 5.
miner’s an
otated figu
eaning ma

nomencla
meral 12 h
riginal ann
e Examin
material.”
er 35 U.S
a and Pora
AN
and 17–2
1, the Exam
rising a b
surfaces,
rial (brush
er 4 and 5
rtion of Sz
notated Fi
re depicts
terial” 12.

ture refers
as been ad
otated fig
er relies on
See Answ
3
.C. § 103(
t (US 6,56
ALYSIS
0 as being
iner foun
ase memb
a handle 1
) 12 attac
. In suppo
opo’s Figu
gure is rep
the “botto

to Szopo.
ded to thi
ure. Answ
brush 12
er 4 and 5
a) as being
4,417 B2,
anticipate
d that Szo
er (pipe se
0 connecte
hed to the
rting his r
re 1 and r
roduced b
m surface”
s reproduc
er 5 and S
for disclo
.
unpatent
issued Ma
d by Szop
po disclos
ction) 11 h
d to the to
bottom sur
ejection, t
eproduced
elow:

of “base
tion as it d
zopo, Fig
sing the cl
able over
y 20,
o
es a
aving
p surface,
face of th
he
it in his
member”
oes not
s. 1–3.
aimed

e
Appeal 2012-006612
Application 12/700,041

4
In response, the Appellants contend that “Szopo does not teach or
suggest, inter alia, ‘a first cleaning material attached to the bottom surface
of the base member’ as is required by [independent claim 1].” Appeal Br. 7.
We agree with the Appellants and find that “first cleaning material”
12 is not attached to the “bottom surface” of “base member” 11. See id.; see
also Answer 5 and 13. The Examiner’s explanation that “said bottom
surface further includes a cleaning material,” is not supported by the Szopo
disclosure and does not address the more specific claim language requiring
the first cleaning material to be attached to the bottom surface of the base
member. Answer 13.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
claims 1, 5, 6, and 17–20 as being anticipated by Szopo.
Rejection of Claims 2–4, 7–16, and 21–34 as Unpatentable
The Examiner’s use of the teachings of Balducci, Coleman,
Fernandez, Yamada, and Porat do not remedy the deficiency of Szopo as
described supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claim 2 as unpatentable over Szopo in view of
Balducci; claim 3 as unpatentable over Szopo in view of Coleman; claim 4
as unpatentable over Szopo in view of Fernandez; claims 7–9, 11–16, and
21–34 as unpatentable over Szopo in view of Yamada; and of claim 10 as
unpatentable over Szopo in view of Yamada and Porat.

Appeal 2012-006612
Application 12/700,041

5
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–34 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh