Robert Almblad

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2022

2021001524 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 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. 15/848,193 12/20/2017 Robert Almblad 1263 016 301 0201 7694 37211 7590 02/14/2022 BASCH & NICKERSON LLP 1844 Penfield Road, Suite 1 PENFIELD, NY 14526 EXAMINER HENSEL, BRENDAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1799 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2022 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): usptomail@bnpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT ALMBLAD ____________ Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies sole inventor Robert Almblad as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed August 17, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 2. 2 Final Office Action entered March 16, 2020 (“Final Act.”), 1. Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant claims a sanitizing system for ice storage equipment. Appeal Br. 3-4. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A sanitizing system for ice storage equipment, comprising: an ice storage bin; and an ozonated water generator to create ozonated water; said ice storage bin including a bottom, a plurality of sidewalls, and an ice receiving inlet; said plurality of sidewalls being disposed substantially perpendicular to said bottom of said ice storage bin; said ice storage bin, operatively connected to said ozonated water generator, further including multiple ozonated water outlet devices located in said ice storage bin, each ozonated water outlet device being orientated to spray ozonated water only on said sidewalls and to minimize exposure of any ice in said ice storage bin to the sprayed ozonated water. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Like claim 1, the remaining independent claim on appeal-claim 8- recites a sanitizing system that includes multiple ozonated water outlet devices, each orientated to spray ozonated water only on the sidewalls of an ice storage bin and to minimize exposure of any ice in the ice storage bin to the sprayed ozonated water. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s Answer entered October 26, 2020 (“Ans.”): Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 3 I. claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Berge3 in view of Koosman;4 and II. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Berge in view of Koosman and Andersen.5 Compare Final Act. 2-6, with Ans. 3. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of the Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below. Berge discloses automated sanitizing system 10 for ice conveyance system 30 that includes ice source 50 for dispensing ice cubes 31 into hopper 51. Berge col. 2, ll. 56-64; Fig. 2. Berge discloses that hopper 51 includes base 54 and walls having interior faces 52 that surround interior volume 53 of hopper 51. Berge col. 3, ll. 8-9, 16-17; Figs. 2 and 3. Berge discloses that liquid collection reservoir 11 collects fluids drained from hopper 51 through outlet 56 at base 54 of hopper 51, and re-circulation pump 17 pumps fluids from reservoir 11 through collection line 16 into re- circulation lines 18. Berge col. 3, ll. 5-13; Figs. 2 and 3. Berge discloses that each re-circulation line 18 terminates in a “spray nozzle 19 arranged to spray fluids pumped through the re-circulation lines 18 about the interior faces 52 and entire interior volume 53 of the hopper 51.” Berge col. 3, ll. 13-17; Figs. 2 and 3. 3 Berge et al., US 6,596,233 B2, issues July 22, 2003. 4 Koosman et al., US 6,287,515 B1, issued September 11, 2001. 5 Andersen et al., US 2019/0209719 A1, published July 11, 2019. Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 4 Berge discloses a process for sanitizing ice conveyance system 30 using sanitizing system 10 that involves producing a sanitizing solution by introducing water into reservoir 11 through water line 12, introducing a sanitizing agent into reservoir 11 through sanitizing agent line 14, and mixing the water and sanitizing agent in reservoir 11. Berge col. 3, ll. 18- 31. Berge discloses activating re-circulation pump 17 to pump the resulting sanitizing solution through re-circulation lines 18 and into spray nozzles 19, which spray the sanitizing solution about interior faces 52 and entire interior volume 53 of hopper 51 while dumping a harvest of ice in hopper 50, so that “the ice harvest becomes coated and intimately associated with the sanitizing solution.” Berge col. 3, ll. 13-17, 43-49. Berge discloses drawing the coated ice cubes 31 and sanitizing solution through ice conveyance system 30 to sanitize system 30. Berge col. 3, ll. 54-57. As discussed above, claims 1 and 8 both recite a sanitizing system that includes multiple ozonated water outlet devices, each orientated to spray ozonated water only on the sidewalls of an ice storage bin and to minimize exposure of any ice in the ice storage bin to the sprayed ozonated water. The Examiner finds that Berge’s apparatus “is well capable of being operated at a low water pressure and with little ice therewithin,” so that “no structural modification” of Berge’s apparatus is required to “meet the claimed limitation of ‘minimizing the exposure of the ice of to the sanitizing agent.’” Ans. 2. The Appellant argues that Berge’s spray nozzles are orientated or arranged to spray the interior surfaces, as well as the entire volume, of Berge’s ice hopper, which is a structurally distinct orientation from the orientation recited in claim 1 in which each ozonated water outlet device is Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 5 orientated to spray ozonated water only on the sidewalls of the recited ice storage bin. Reply Br. 2. The Appellant’s argument identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, for reasons that follow. We find no definition or limiting description in the Appellant’s Specification of outlet devices “orientated” to “spray” ozonated water only on the sidewalls of an ice storage bin, and to minimize exposure of any ice in the ice storage bin to the sprayed ozonated water. We, therefore, interpret this claim language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.); In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (During prosecution of patent applications, “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”). The word “orientate” is defined as “to face . . . in any specified direction.” Collinsdictionary.com (accessed February 6, 2022), https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/orientate. The word “spray,” when used as a noun, is defined as “a mass of very small drops of liquid carried in the air,” and when used as a verb, is defined as “to spread liquid in small drops over an area.” Dictionary.com (accessed February 6, 2022), https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english /spray. We, therefore, interpret ozonated water outlet devices “orientated” to “spray” ozonated water only on the sidewalls of an ice storage bin, and to minimize exposure of any ice in the ice storage bin to the sprayed ozonated Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 6 water, as recited in claims 1 and 8, as devices that face in a direction so that very small drops of ozonated water emitted from the devices and carried through the air are spread only over the sidewalls of an ice storage bin, so as to minimize exposure of any ice in the ice storage bin to the ozonated water. This interpretation is consistent with the Appellant’s Specification, and with the plain language of claims 1 and 8. Spec. ¶ 251. As discussed above, Berge explicitly discloses that each spray nozzle 19 of Berge’s system is “arranged to spray fluids pumped through the re- circulation lines 18 about the interior faces 52 and entire interior volume 53 of the hopper 51” so that ice present in hopper 51 “becomes coated and intimately associated with the sanitizing solution.” Although Berge’s re- circulation pump 17 conceivably could be operated so that the sanitizing solution would travel through re-circulation lines 18 at such a low pressure that the sanitizing solution would trickle from each spray nozzle 19 down interior faces 52 of hopper 51 as the Examiner asserts, such an application of the sanitizing solution would not constitute “spraying” the sanitizing solution, because under such pressure, very small drops of the sanitizing solution would not be carried from nozzles 19 through the air before being spread on (or applied to) an area. And if the pressure applied by Berge’s re- circulation pump 17 were increased to the extent required to actually spray sanitizing solution from each spray nozzle 19, such that very small drops of the sanitizing solution would be carried from nozzles 19 through the air before application to an area, the very small drops of sanitizing solution would not be spread only on (applied to) interior faces 52 of hopper 51, in view of Berge’s explicit disclosure that each spray nozzle 19 of Berge’s Appeal 2021-001524 Application 15/848,193 7 system is arranged to “spray” sanitizing solution about “the interior faces 52 and entire interior volume 53 of the hopper 51.” The Examiner, therefore, does not establish that Berge discloses multiple ozonated water outlet devices that are each orientated to spray ozonated water only on the sidewalls of an ice storage bin and to minimize exposure of any ice in the ice storage bin to the sprayed ozonated water as recited in claims 1 and 8, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language. Nor does the Examiner provide any explanation for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the spray nozzles of Berge’s system to have such an orientation, particularly when Berge explicitly teaches that a fundamental aspect of Berge’s sanitizing process involves coating ice cubes with sanitizing solution sprayed from spray nozzles 19, so that the ice cubes become “intimately associated with the sanitizing solution.” On the record before us, therefore, the Examiner does not establish that Berge discloses or would have suggested multiple ozonated water outlet devices orientated as required by claims 1 and 8. We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Berge, Koosman 1 8 103 Berge, Koosman, Andersen 8 Overall Outcome 1, 8 REVERSED