Ex Parte Weaver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2017

13529646 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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. 13/529,646 06/21/2012 Kerry Lloyd WEAVER 12517 6990 27752 7590 02/02/2017 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global IP Services Central Building, C9 One Procter and Gamble Plaza CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER BAINBRIDGE, ANDREW PHILIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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 KERRY LLOYD WEAVER and KYLE VINCENT ZINK Appeal 2015-003221 Application 13/529,646 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kerry Lloyd Weaver and Kyle Vincent Zink (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1—13 and 15 as unpatentable over Dolson (US 5,509,583; iss. Apr. 23, 1996), Pandolfi (US 6,935,535 B2; iss. Aug. 30, 2005), Steinman (US 4,173,295; iss. Nov. 6, 1979), and Kephart (US 4,260,078; iss. Apr. 7, 1981). Claim 14 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-003221 Application 13/529,646 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to a “liquid dispensing system” Spec. 1:4; Figs. 1, 2, 4. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A liquid dispensing system comprising: a base having a drip tray receptacle; a pedestal extending from said base and elevated relative to said base, said pedestal having a housing defined by a floor having a floor edge and a peripheral wall extending from said floor edge to a container support section; wherein said container support section has a recessed portion; a connecting member positioned within said housing between said floor and said container support section; and a conduit extending from said connecting member, said conduit sized and dimensioned to provide for flow of a viscous liquid, wherein said conduit is sized and dimensioned to fit in said recessed portion; wherein said base has an open portion and a tap is attached to said conduit, wherein said open portion is aligned with an outlet of said tap dispenser so that when a liquid is dispensed from said outlet, said liquid can pass through said base without contacting said base. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 calls for “wherein said base has an open portion and a tap is attached to said conduit, wherein said open portion is aligned with an outlet of said tap dispenser so that when a liquid is dispensed from said outlet, said liquid can pass through said base without contacting said base.” Appeal Br. 4, Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner initially finds that Dolson teaches the claimed base 15,17 having an “open portion” 2 Appeal 2015-003221 Application 13/529,646 (referring to the cutaway in Fig. 1). Final Act. 4. Still referring to Dolson, the Examiner additionally finds that “the tap 29, 43 is attached to the conduit 31 and is aligned such that when the tap is opened, the fluid can leave the bottle 11 without contacting the base directly.” Id.', see also Dolson Fig. 1. Appellants contend that Dolson fails to disclose the “open portion” as claimed. Appeal Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants contend that “[t]he outlet of the valve 29 in Dolson extends outwardly away from the bottle 11. The outlet of the valve 29 in Dolson is not positioned so that liquid can pass through the base without contacting the base.” Id. at 3. The Examiner takes an alternate approach in the Examiner’s Answer. In particular, the Examiner states “neither Dolson nor Steinman are relied upon to teach the ‘open portion.’” Ans. 7. However, the Examiner finds that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the bowl reciever [sic] of Pandolfi with an open portion or drain as a matter of an obvious design choice because then the Dolson combination could more readily dispense fluid from the tap right down an aligned drain with minimizing any spillage, which is a problem that is well known and well understood in the art of dispensing containers. Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further states that the “open portion” is provided “indirectly” by Pandolfi as a matter of an obvious design choice. Id. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on Pandolfi for the open portion as “a matter of obvious design choice” “is conclusory.” Reply Br. 1. Regarding the Examiner’s initial reliance on Dolson for the claimed “open portion,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, base 15, 17 of 3 Appeal 2015-003221 Application 13/529,646 Dolson includes an “open portion” “aligned with an outlet of the tap dispenser.” See Dolson, Fig. 1; see also Final Act. 4. However, the claim further requires that the open portion of the base be aligned with an outlet of the tap dispenser, “so that when a liquid is dispensed from said outlet, said liquid can pass through said base without contacting said base.” Appeal Br. 4, Claims App. (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants that “[o]nce the liquid in Dolson [is] dispensed from the tap, that liquid does not pass through the base since it is remote from the base.” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis added); see also Dolson, Fig. 1; Final Act. 4 (emphasis added) (“the tap 29, 43 is attached to the conduit 31 and is aligned such that when the tap is opened, the fluid can leave the bottle 11 without contacting the base directly.'’'’). As such, Dolson fails to disclose a base having an “open portion,” as recited in claim 1. Regarding the Examiner’s alternate reliance on Pandolfi for the claimed “open portion,” Pandolfi is directed to a hot wax dispenser (Pandolfi, passim). In the Pandolfi device, heated wax is dispensed from containers 10 via control valve 26 into either a cup or a wax dispensing bowl (both unnumbered). See Pandolfi, 2:12—50; Fig. 2. The wax dispensing bowl can be placed on the upper surface of base 28. See id. at 2:42-44. The Examiner does not direct us to any discussion in Pandolfi of either the wax dispensing bowl or base 28 having an “open portion” or replacing the wax dispensing bowl with an open portion. See Ans. 7. Therefore, we fail to see how Pandolfi either directly or “indirectly” (as the Examiner asserts) discloses or suggests the claimed “open portion” as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, the Examiner acknowledges that when the tap of Dolson is opened, liquid “can leave the bottle 11 without contacting the base 4 Appeal 2015-003221 Application 13/529,646 directly.'1'’ Final Act. 4 (emphasis added); see also Dolson, Fig. 1; Appeal Br. 3. Given that liquid dispensed from the outlet of Dolson’s device already does not come in contact with base 17, we fail to see, and the Examiner fails to articulate, why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Dolson’s base 17 to include an “open portion” such that when liquid is dispensed from the outlet, the liquid would pass through base 17 without contacting base 17. See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 7; Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1; Dolson, Fig. 1. Consequently, based on the foregoing reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Dolson, Pandolfi, Steinman, and Kephart render obvious the liquid dispensing system recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2—13 and 15 as unpatentable over Dolson, Pandolfi, Steinman, and Kephart. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—13 and 15 as unpatentable over Dolson, Pandolfi, Steinman, and Kephart. REVERSED 5