Ex Parte Vosbikian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 201412700041 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation