Gary Johnson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2022

2022000785 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2022)

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. 16/634,938 01/29/2020 Gary Lind Johnson 16202-002US (DGM) 1072 159655 7590 01/27/2022 Erica M. Cipparone WOLTER VAN DYKE DAVIS, PLLC 1900 Summit Tower Blvd. SUITE 140 Orlando, FL 32810 EXAMINER CONLON, MARISA V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2022 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): EMCpatents@savvyiplaw.com USPTO@dockettrak.com patents@savvyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GARY LIND JOHNSON and KIRK DAVID JOHNSON Appeal 2022-000785 Application 16/634,938 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventors, Gary Lind Johnson and Kirk David Johnson. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2022-000785 Application 16/634,938 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to an agricultural watering apparatus. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Agricultural apparatus comprising: multiple vertical poles suspended from a movable conveyance of a conveyor system; an irrigation reservoir mounted on each respective vertical pole; wherein each reservoir provides time-release gravity-feed irrigation to plant growing containers at multiple heights on the respective pole via an irrigation line or lines with outlet metering that compensates for different water pressures at the multiple heights on the pole. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Campbell US 4,068,405 Jan. 17, 1978 Nuttman US 8,418,403 B1 Apr. 16, 2013 Collins US 2015/0223418 A1 Aug. 13, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nuttman and Collins. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nuttman, Collins, and Campbell. OPINION Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and requires “an irrigation reservoir mounted on each respective vertical pole” of the conveyor system. The Examiner finds that Nuttman’s manifold 24 corresponds to the recited “reservoir.” Final Act. 3. Appeal 2022-000785 Application 16/634,938 3 Appellant disputes this finding, and contends that “[a] reservoir must be capable of storing a volume of a fluid for a future use, such as the water tank of a toilet,” and “[i]n contrast, a manifold is used to divide a flow of a fluid into multiple individual flows (or to recombine multiple flows into a single flow).” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that “[t]he manifold assembly 24 of Nuttman does not store water, nor is it capable of doing so, but rather, it simply divides and distributes it to multiple locations on a continuous basis as the water is delivered to the inlet 22.” Id. at 3−4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds that “[r]eferring to component (24) [in Nuttman] as a manifold assembly rather than a reservoir is a matter of mere semantics; component (24) of Nuttman clearly functions as a reservoir.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that “[i]n Nuttman, the reservoir (‘manifold assembly’) (24) is configured to store water for future use” because “‘[t]he manifold assembly (24) provides water at drip irrigation rates to eight distribution hoses 28’ (Col. 1, lines 57-60).” Id. at 4. The basis for the Examiner’s finding above is essentially that anything through which water passes holds water, so it must also be a reservoir. The Examiner does not disagree with Appellant that the proper meaning of reservoir requires a structure that is capable of storing a volume of water. Rather, the Examiner’s distorts this meaning, explaining that “[i]t does not matter if the Nuttman reservoir stores water for a shorter time duration than [A]ppellant’s reservoir” and “Appellant’s claim 1 does not indicate a specific period of time the water must remain in reservoir.” Ans. 4. Although some amount of water may be present in Nuttman’s manifold 24 at any given time, that does not make manifold 24 a reservoir. Appeal 2022-000785 Application 16/634,938 4 Nuttman’s manifold 24 is not a stored water source. Rather, “water is supplied to the water inlet 22 [and proceeds to manifold 24] at drip irrigation rates and at a controlled pressure . . . typically using a pump.” Nuttman, 2:7-12. Because the Examiner’s finding regarding the “reservoir” recited in claim 1 is deficient, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. The stated bases for the rejection of claims 3-7, which depend from claim 1, do not cure this deficiency. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 7 103 Nuttman, Collins 1, 3, 4, 7 5, 6 103 Nuttman, Collins, Campbell 5, 6 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7 REVERSED