Medline Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

15072069 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2020)

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.
15/072,069 03/16/2016 Derek Roberts BPMDL0119DR (11366U) 4286
27939 7590 07/01/2020
Philip H. Burrus, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MCCONNELL, AARON R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
kberry@burrusiplaw.com
pburrus@burrusiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEREK ROBERTS

Appeal 2019-006944
Application 15/072,069
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Medline Industries, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006944
Application 15/072,069

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant’s invention “relates generally to cleaning devices, and
more particularly to cleaning mops having attachable cleaning devices.”
Spec. ¶ 2. The invention includes embodiments that
provid[e] a mop that includes a “hands free” head removal
system that allows a user to detach a cleaning pad from a mop
head without ever touching the pad. In one embodiment, a
bottom surface of a housing defining a mop head includes two
flappers that, when an associated actuator is actuated, pivot
from a closed position, disposed within the housing and
substantially parallel with the bottom surface, to an angularly
displaced open position extending distally outward from the
major surface, thereby detaching the cleaning pad from the mop
head.
Id. ¶ 15.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A mop, comprising:
a housing defining a major surface to couple to a
cleaning pad; and
one or more flappers disposed along the major surface,
the one or more flappers to selectively pivot from a closed
position disposed within the housing and substantially parallel
with the major surface to an angularly displaced open position
extending distally outward from the major surface.

Appeal 2019-006944
Application 15/072,069

3

Rejections
Claims 1–7 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Soller et al. (US 2014/0007367 A1, pub. Jan. 9, 2014)
(hereinafter “Soller”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Soller
in view of Niemeyer et al. (US 2007/0022553 A1, pub. Feb. 1, 2007)
(hereinafter “Niemeyer”).
Claims 9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Soller in view of Bober et al. (US 2013/0340187 A1, pub.
Dec. 26, 2013) (hereinafter “Bober”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Soller in view of Hull (US 473,004, iss. Apr. 19, 1892) (hereinafter “Hull”).
Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Soller as modified by Hull in view of Wetzl et al. (EP 1 384 430 A2, pub.
June 25, 2003) (hereinafter “Wetzl”).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 calls for a mop having one or more flappers
disposed within a housing. Supra. Independent claim 16 calls for a similar
mop as claim 1. See Appeal Br. 32, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that the claimed one or more flappers and housing
read on Soller’s wings 38a,b and cleaning material-supporting head 16,
respectively. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Soller’s wings 38a,b are
disposed within head 16 because wings 38a,b are disposed within the
perimeter of head 16’s lower base 29. See id. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
finding is based on a construction of the claim phrase “disposed within the
Appeal 2019-006944
Application 15/072,069

4

housing” as meaning disposed within the perimeter of the housing. Ans. 11–
12 (citing Oxford English Dictionary “‘within’ can also mean ‘[i]n the inner
part or interior of, inside of, in (a space, region, receptacle, etc.)’ (‘within,
adv., prep., and adj.’ OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,
www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/229671. Accessed 28 June
2019.)”).
The Appellant construes the term “within” in “disposed within the
housing” as “inside (something).” Appeal Br. 13 (citing New Oxford
American Dictionary, electronic version 2.2.2 (203.1) 2017). The Appellant
submits that the term is used “consistently with this definition throughout
the [S]pecification and [F]igures.” Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted); see id. at
11–13 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 26, 32–33, Figs. 2, 5). The Appellant has the better
position.
The issue presented in this appeal concerns the broadest reasonable
interpretation of one or more flappers “disposed within the housing,” as
required by claim 1, when read in light of the Specification as interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). We determine that one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of one or more flappers “disposed within the housing,” when
read in light of the Specification, refers to one or more flappers that are
disposed inside of the housing. See Spec. ¶¶ 15, 18, 26, 32–33, 37, 38,
Figs. 2, 3. Additionally, we determine that the Examiner’s construction of
“disposed within the housing” as pertaining to the perimeter of the housing
is not consistent with the Specification.
Appeal 2019-006944
Application 15/072,069

5

In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner erred in
finding that Soller discloses that wings 38a,b are disposed within head 16.
See also Appeal Br. 15 (“the alleged flappers of Soller are always outside
the mop head. They are never positioned inside the mop head.”); Soller
Fig. 2.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 2–7, 14, 15, 17, and 18. In the
remaining rejections the Examiner fails to rely on the teachings of
Niemeyer, Bober, Hull, and/or Wetzl in any manner that would remedy the
deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection as discussed above. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 8–13, 19, and 20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 14–18 102(a)(1) Soller 1–7, 14–18
8 103 Soller, Niemeyer 8
9, 19, 20 103 Soller, Bober 9, 19, 20
10 103 Soller, Hull 10
11–13 103 Soller, Hull, Wetzl 11–13
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED