Red Letter Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 15, 2021

2021003208 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

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. 16/293,217 03/05/2019 Anthony F. Mullet 3325001US4AP 7590 27542 7590 11/15/2021 SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA AEGIS TOWER, SUITE 1100 4940 MUNSON STREET, NW CANTON, OH 44718-3615 EXAMINER ROMANO, ASHLEY K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2021 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): docket@sswip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANTHONY F. MULLET, BRYAN S. MULLET, JOSHUA A. MULLET, and JAMES S. ARNOLD Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 11–15, and 17–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Red Letter Holdings, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. 2 The Examiner has indicated that claims 8–10 and 16 recite allowable subject matter. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 2 BACKGROUND The Specification describes “methods and systems for trash collection,” and more particularly, “methods and systems involving a dumpster and a dumpster housing in which the dumpster may be disposed.” Spec. ¶ 2. CLAIMS Claims 1, 19, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method comprising the steps of: providing a dumpster housing defining an interior chamber in which is disposed a dumpster, the dumpster having a left wall spaced apart from a left sidewall of the dumpster housing and not in contact therewith, and a right wall spaced apart from a right sidewall of the dumpster housing and not in contact therewith; and lifting with a garbage truck lift the dumpster out of the interior chamber, wherein the step of lifting is performed by an operator of the garbage truck without the operator coming into contact with the dumpster housing. Appeal Br. 26. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 11–15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Goode.3 2. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wagner.4 3 Goode, US 2013/0277633 A1, pub. Oct. 24, 2013. 4 Wagner, US 8,668,186 B1, iss. Mar. 11, 2014. Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 3 3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goode in view of Gaddis.5 4. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goode in view of Vollmar.6 DISCUSSION Claims 1–4, 6, 11–15 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Goode discloses a method as claimed. Final Act. 2. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to this rejection as it applies to claim 1 specifically. See id. at 2, 7–8; see also Ans. 4–5. For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. Goode discloses “a novel dumpster enclosure having replaceable panels and a front gate designed with sockets positioned to allow access to a dumpster lift arm opening for removal of the dumpster front enclosure by a garbage truck without exiting the garbage truck.” Goode, Abstract. Goode discloses a dumpster housing made of panels 5, poles 6, and café doors 8. Id. ¶ 46. A dumpster 1 is disposed within the housing and “has dumpster arms 2 with dumpster arm lift openings 3.” Id. ¶ 45. In use, Goode discloses that, in order to remove the dumpster, the lifting arms of a garbage truck pass through the front door of the enclosure and into the dumpster arm openings after which the dumpster is lifted and the doors are opened as the truck moves with the dumpster. Id. ¶ 41. 5 Gaddis, US 4,782,628, iss. Nov. 8, 1988. 6 Vollmar, US 3,500,585, iss. Mar. 17, 1970. Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 4 Appellant argues that Goode does not disclose a method as required by claim 1 because Goode does not teach lifting the dumpster out of the housing. Appeal Br. 17–20. More specifically, Appellant asserts that the claim requires vertically lifting the dumpster out of the top of the housing and argues that Goode does not disclose lifting of the dumpster in this manner. Id. Further, Appellant asserts that, even if Goode teaches vertically lifting the dumpster, such “vertical movement is limited in range by the upper limits of the openings in the café doors, and necessarily precludes the ability for the dumpster to be lifted out of the top of the enclosure as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 19–20. We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of the claim as requiring vertical lifting of the dumpster out of the top of the housing. The claim language at issue recites, “lifting with a garbage truck lift the dumpster out of the interior chamber” of the dumpster housing and does not require lifting “out of the top of the enclosure,” as Appellant asserts. We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that the dumpster is picked up and moved to a position outside of the interior of the dumpster housing, which is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “lift” and associated disclosure in the Specification. See https:// dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lift (definition of “lift”: “to take hold of and raise something in order to remove, carry, or move it to a different position”); see also Spec. Fig. 8 (showing the dumpster is picked up and moved to a different position during the lifting action). In light of this broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that Goode discloses lifting the dumpster out of the interior of the enclosure, i.e., Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 5 Goode teaches that the dumpster is picked up and moved out of the interior of the enclosure. See Goode ¶ 41. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Goode. Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2–4, 6, and 11–15, and thus, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of those claims for the same reasons. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 11–15. Claim 20 With respect to claim 20, we agree with Appellant that the claim language reciting “a dumpster housing defining an interior chamber . . . over which extends a closed cover door of the dumpster housing” requires a structure that extends on top of the interior chamber. The plain language of the claim requires that this structure is a cover door that extends over the interior chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these limitations collectively require a door that is disposed on top of the housing, which is consistent with how the invention is described in Specification. We are not persuaded that the claim should be interpreted more broadly by the Examiner’s analysis. To the extent the Examiner provides dictionary definitions to support a broader interpretation, we do not see how the Examiner has analyzed these terms in the context of the claim as a whole or in the context of how the terms are used in the Specification. See Ans. 5. We also disagree with the Examiner to the extent the Examiner states, “it is also noted that Para. 41 of the Goode reference refers to the doors as a ‘dumpster covering’ in line 3 of the paragraph.” Id. Goode discloses “[t]he Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 6 doors can partially cover the front with the dumpster covering the rest of the front and acting as part of the front gate.” Goode ¶ 41. Although this statement indicates there are doors on the dumpster housing, they are not described as a dumpster covering. Based on the foregoing, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that Goode teaches a cover as required by claim 20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20. Claim 19 We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 19 because the Examiner has failed to establish that Wagner discloses a method including the step of providing a dumpster housing with a sidewall that defines an interior chamber and “left and right lift-receiving through openings in communication with interior chamber.” With respect to this claim, the Examiner finds that Wagner discloses a dumpster housing 10 with a sidewall, an interior chamber, and lift receiving through openings in communication with the interior chamber. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further explains: As can best be seen in Figures 1–2 of the referenced Wagner, channels 16 are accessed by a garbage truck lift through left and right lift-receiving through openings in communication with an interior chamber. Left and right lift-receiving through openings are the space in front of the channels 16 through which the channels are accessed with a garbage truck lift. Id. at 8. We agree with Appellant that claim 19 recites left and right lift- receiving through openings that are defined in the sidewall of the dumpster housing. See Appeal Br. 23. Although the Examiner asserts that the claim does not recite that the through openings are defined in the sidewall of the Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 7 housing, the Examiner does not provide further explanation, and the plain language of the claim appears to require that the sidewall defines the through openings. Wagner discloses sidewall 21 in the form of screens including a screen that is part of the gate 30 on the front portion of the apparatus. See Wagner col. 4, ll. 30–48. Wagner discloses that the gate is opened “via a downward force provided by a pair of loading arms” on a front loading garbage truck. Id. After the gate is lowered, the loading arms engage the dumpster to empty it in a conventional manner. Id. col. 7, ll. 24–28, 48–50. Wagner does not disclose any specific openings in gate 30 or any other openings in the sidewall 21. Given this disclosure, we fail to see how Wagner discloses any through openings defined by sidewalls in the housing. We disagree with the Examiner that the empty space created after Wagner’s gate is lowered may be considered a pair of through holes defined by sidewalls as the claim requires. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error and do not sustain the rejection of claim 19. Obviousness Rejections With respect to the rejections of claims 5, 7, 17, and 18, Appellant argues only that the art of record does not cure the alleged deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 24–25. As discussed, we are not persuaded of any deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, and thus, for the reasons discussed, we also sustain the rejections of claims 5, 7, 17, and 18. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, and 18. We REVERSE the rejections of claims 19 and 20. Appeal 2021-003208 Application 16/293,217 8 In summary: DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 11– 15, 20 102(a)(1) Goode 1–4, 6, 11– 15 20 19 102(a)(1) Wagner 19 5, 7, 18 103 Goode, Gaddis 5, 7, 18 17 103 Goode, Vollmer 17 Overall Outcome 1–7, 11–15, 17, 18 19, 20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART