Watkins Manufacturing Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021005150 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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. 15/651,709 07/17/2017 Michael McCague 076359-016700 9526 136058 7590 03/02/2022 Lapple Ubell IP Law LLP for Masco Corporation 19800 MacArthur Boulevard 3rd Floor Irvine, CA 92612 EXAMINER RUFO, LOUIS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1795 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): admin@lappleubell.com frank@lappleubell.com matt@lappleubell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte MICHAEL McCAGUE and PAUL ODDOU __________ Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 15-19, 22, 36, 39-41, 44, 45, 55-97.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Watkins Manufacturing Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Masco Corporation.” Appeal Brief dated March 5, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1. 2 The Examiner indicates that pending claims 53 and 54 are allowable. Final Office Action dated November 25, 2020 (“Final Act.”), at 2. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 2 The claims on appeal are directed to an electrode cartridge constructed to generate chlorine and purify spa water.3 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: (1) claims 86, 96, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement; (2) claims 65-69, 73-77, 87-90, 92-954 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Andrews;5 (3) claims 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Cam;6 (4) claims 15-19, 22, 36, 39-41, 55-64, and 79-85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Faure7 in view of Gale8 or Powell;9 and (5) claims 70-72, 78, and 91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Andrews. B. DISCUSSION 1. Rejection (4) Representative claim 15 is reproduced below. The limitation at issue is italicized. 3 Representative claims are reproduced in appropriate sections of the “DISCUSSION,” infra. 4 The Examiner omitted claims 94 and 95 from the statement of the rejection but addressed the claims in the body of the rejection. Final Office Action dated November 25, 2020 (“Final Act.”), at 14. Therefore, the omission was harmless error. The statement of the rejection has been corrected to include claims 94 and 95. 5 US 2012/0012209 A1, to Andrews et al., published January 19, 2012 (“Andrews”). 6 US 2017/0152162 A1, to Cam et al., published June 1, 2017 (“Cam”). 7 US 2014/0367344 A1, to Faure, published December 18, 2014 (“Faure”). 8 US 4,036,726, to Gale et al., issued July 19, 1977 (“Gale”). 9 US 2009/0173638 A1, to Powell et al., published July 9, 2009 (“Powell”). Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 3 15. An electrode cartridge constructed to generate chlorine and to purify spa water and shaped to be installed into and removed from a housing by a user of a spa, the electrode cartridge comprising: a handle grippable by the user to insert the electrode cartridge into the housing and to pull the electrode cartridge out of the housing for replacement; an electrode holder located beneath the handle; first and second electrodes mounted in said electrode holder and positioned to extend downwardly from a bottom surface of the electrode holder so as to extend into said housing when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing, the first and second electrodes being selected to generate chlorine to purify spa water, the first and second electrodes being spaced horizontally apart so as to create a flow path for electrical current between them; and first and second electrical contacts so positioned on the electrode cartridge as to respectively contact first and second electrical contacts on the housing into which the electrode cartridge is shaped to be installed when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing. Amended Appeal Br. 46 (emphasis added).10 Claim 15 recites that first and second electrodes are “selected to generate chlorine to purify spa water” and claims 55, 79, and 85 recite that first and second electrodes are “constructed to generate chlorine to purify spa water.” Appeal Br. 46, 49, 55, 56 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Examiner finds that first and second electrodes 22 in Faure are “selected” and “configured” to generate chlorine to purify spa water. Final Act. 18, 24, 30, 35. The Examiner explains that “an electrode is a conductive material 10 Amended Appeal Brief dated March 26, 2021. The amended Appeal Brief was filed in response to a “Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief” dated March 19, 2021, stating that the previously filed Appeal Brief did not contain a correct copy of the appealed claims. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 4 that when applied into an electrolytic system, provides with a power source, the appropriate electrical parameters to carry out the electrolytic reaction, which is a result of the solution used to carry out the reaction.” Ans. 24-25.11 The Examiner concludes that the term “‘selected to’ does not impart further structural limitation to electrodes, and when read in light of the specification, does not require any specific materials in light of the prior art.” Ans. 25. We interpret the terms “selected to” and “constructed to” in claims 15, 55, 79, and 85 as reciting that the material and the configuration of the electrodes render the electrodes capable of generating chlorine when paired with a suitable electrolyte. See Appeal Br. 22 (arguing that the word “constructed” is a structural limitation). The Appellant argues that Faure’s electrodes 22 are selected to generate oxygen via electrolysis of water and cannot generate chlorine. Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 6 (citing Faure ¶ 30).12 Therefore, the Appellant argues that Faure’s electrodes are not “selected” or “constructed” to generate chlorine as recited in the claims on appeal. Appeal Br. 22-23. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. The invention disclosed in Faure is said to “allow[] for water to be disinfected by using the oligodynamic effect of transition metal ions on microorganisms in combination with the oxidative effect of nascent oxygen on bacterial enzymes and other organic material.” Faure ¶ 23. According to Faure’s process, oxygen is introduced into water by electrolysis of the water using electrodes 22, which are made from carbon, such as graphite, or an inert metal, such as platinum, stainless steel, or 11 Examiner’s Answer dated July 1, 2021. 12 Reply Brief dated August 27, 2021. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 5 titanium. Faure ¶¶ 15, 30. After electrolysis, Faure discloses that the water comes into contact with a silver electrode, where ionized silver disinfects the water using the oligodynamic effect. Faure ¶ 31. The water is also said to be brought into contact with copper and zinc electrodes, where it is further treated using the oligodynamic effect of ionized copper and zinc. Faure ¶ 31. On this record, the Examiner has failed to show, in the first instance, that any of the electrode materials disclosed in Faure would have been capable of generating chlorine in Faure’s apparatus.13 Moreover, the Examiner has failed to explain, in any detail, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the electrodes in Faure’s apparatus to generate chlorine based on the prior art of record. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability). Notably, Faure discloses that “[t]he invention can be used as a replacement of chlorine based water disinfection methods and still ensure primary and secondary disinfection abilities.” Faure ¶ 35. For the reasons discussed above, the obviousness rejection of claims 15-19, 22, 36, 39-41, 55-64, and 79-85 based Faure in view of Gale or Powell is not sustained. 2. Rejection (3) Claim 44 is reproduced below. The limitations at issue are identified in italics and bolded italics. 44. An electrode cartridge comprising: 13 In illustrative embodiments in the Appellant’s Specification, Appellant’s electrodes are said to “comprise, for example, titanium or niobium base metal with a suitable oxide coating, such as, for example, ruthenium oxide, iridium oxide, or platinum oxide,” and “[i]n other embodiments, the electrodes could be boron/nitrogen doped diamond.” Spec. ¶ 32. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 6 a single piece first electrode including a vertical portion configured to generate chlorine, the vertical portion forming into a horizontal base portion from which extends an outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact; and a single piece second electrode including a vertical portion configured to generate chlorine, the vertical portion forming into a horizontal base portion from which extends an outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact. Amended Appeal Br. 48 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Cam discloses an electrode cartridge comprising a single piece electrode including a vertical portion 272 and a tab 274. Final Act. 16 (referring to Cam Figure 28). Cam Figure 28, reproduced below, illustrates vertical portion 272 and tab 274. Cam Figure 28 is a cross sectional view through a treatment chamber. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 7 The Appellant argues that Cam identifies element 240, not vertical portion 272, as an electrode. Appeal Br. 34; see also Cam ¶ 311 (disclosing that treatment chamber 210 includes at least one power connector 272 for connecting power to an electrode holder 280 or an electrode 240 held by the electrode holder 280); Cam Fig. 30 (illustrating electrode 240 and power connector 272). The Appellant also argues that Cam does not disclose that the vertical portion of power connector 272 “forms into a horizontal base portion from which extends an outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact” as claimed. Appeal Br. 36 (emphasis added). The Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner finds that “vertical portion 272 curves out to section 274 which is outward the section 272. In other words, the ‘curved’ part is the portion where 272 curves to form [horizontal section] 274.”14 Ans. 31 (emphasis added). Claim 44, however, does not recite that the curved portion forms the horizontal section (e.g., 274) or that an outwardly curved portion extends from the vertical portion (e.g., 272) as illustrated in Cam Figure 28. Rather, claim 44 recites that the vertical portion forms into a horizontal base portion and an outwardly curved spring electrical contact extends from that horizontal base portion. Appeal Br. 48. We interpret claim 44 as reciting three separate elements, i.e., a vertical portion, a horizontal base portion formed from the vertical portion, and an outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact extending from the horizontal base portion.15 Based on the Examiner’s findings, two scenarios are possible. In the 14 The Examiner correctly concludes that “the claims do not require any particular extent of curvature.” Ans. 31. 15 The Appellant contends that the claim language includes six limitations, i.e., “(1) a vertical portion (2) which forms into (3) a horizontal base portion (4) from which extends (5) an outwardly curved (6) spring arm electrical contact.” Appeal Br. 27. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 8 first scenario, vertical portion 272 corresponds to the claimed vertical portion, and the vertical portion forms into the horizontal base portion 274 at the curved portion illustrated in Cam Figure 28. In this scenario, Cam does not describe an outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact extending from the horizontal base portion as claimed. See Reply Br. 12 (contending that nothing extends from horizontal portion 274). In the second scenario, vertical portion 272 corresponds to the claimed vertical portion, and the curved portion between the vertical portion 272 and the horizontal base portion 274 corresponds to the outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact extending from the horizontal base portion 274. However, in this scenario, the vertical portion 272 does not form into the horizontal base portion 274 as claimed. To anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner has failed to show that Cam describes an electrode cartridge comprising each of the elements recited in claim 44. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445 (the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability). Therefore, the anticipation rejection of claims 44 and 45 based on Cam is not sustained. 3. Rejections (2) and (5) a. Claim 95 Claim 95 is reproduced below. The limitations at issue are italicized. 95. An electrode cartridge constructed to generate chlorine and to purify spa water and shaped to be installed into and removed from a housing by a user of a spa and comprising: Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 9 a handle grippable by the user to insert the electrode cartridge into the housing and to pull the electrode cartridge out of the housing for replacement; an electrode holder located beneath the handle; first and second electrodes mounted in said electrode holder and positioned to extend downwardly from a bottom surface of the electrode holder so as to extend into said housing when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing, the first and second electrodes being constructed to generate chlorine to purify spa water, the first and second electrodes being spaced horizontally apart so as to create a flow path for electrical current between them; and first and second electrical contacts positioned on the electrode cartridge to respectively contact first and second electrical contacts on the housing into which the electrode cartridge is shaped to be installed when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing and further so positioned as to enable the flow path of electrical current into and out of the electrode cartridge to be broken by the single step of pulling the electrode cartridge out of the housing. Amended Appeal Br. 60-61. The Examiner finds Andrews discloses an electrode cartridge as recited in claim 95. Final Act. 14. The Examiner directs our attention to Andrews Figure 2, reproduced below. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 10 Andrews Figure 2 is a cross-sectional view of a water treatment device. The Examiner finds that Andrews’ cap 38 corresponds to the claimed handle. Final Act. 14. The Appellant argues that “[t]he dictionary defines ‘handle’ as ‘something especially designed to be held by the hand.’” Appeal Br. 36 (citation omitted). The Appellant argues that element 38 is a cap, not a handle, which closes opening 58. Appeal Br. 37. The Appellant also argues that cap 38 is not part of an electrode cartridge as claimed and thus is not “grippable by the user to insert an electrode cartridge into the housing 22 and to pull the electrode cartridge out of the housing.” Appeal Br. 37; see also Appeal Br. 41. The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. On this record, Andrews’ cap 38 appears to have been designed to be held by a hand. In that regard, Andrews discloses that the electrode housing 46 is interconnected with cap 38 and collar 42 and is removable from the upper portion 22 of housing 14. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 11 Andrews ¶ 27; see also Andrews ¶ 26 (disclosing that cap 38 is configured to connect to collar 42). Thus, it is reasonable to find that cap 38 functions as a handle and may be used to remove electrode housing 46 from a housing as claimed. See Ans. 32 (finding that “the cap, which [is] the top part of the cartridge and only potion [sic] available to actually grab the electrode cartridge, is designed to be gripped by a user by virtue of being the structure available to grab while the electrode cartridge is in an installed position”); see also Andrews Fig. 4B (showing ribs on the outer surface of cap 38 enabling the cap to be grasped by the hand).16 The Appellant also argues that Andrews does not disclose ‘first and second electrical contacts positioned on the electrode cartridge to respectively contact first and second electrical contacts on the housing into which the electrode cartridge is shaped to be installed when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing’ [and] electrical contacts ‘further so positioned as to enable the flow path of electrical current into and out of the electrode cartridge to be broken by the single step of pulling the electrode cartridge out of the housing.’ Appeal Br. 41 (emphasis added). 16 Andrews’ electrode cartridge includes cap 38, collar 42, electrode housing 46, and electrodes 106. Andrews discloses that “[r]emovability of electrode housing 46 is especially important when its electrodes [106] are consumed in use, as replacement of the electrodes eventually will be required.” Andrews ¶ 27. Based on that disclosure in Andrews, it is clear that electrodes 106 are replaced. In the Reply Brief, however, the Appellant argues for the first time on appeal that Andrews does not disclose that electrode housing 46 is replaced when the electrodes are worn out. Reply Br. 21. Suffice it to say that claim 95 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim, and does not require the electrode cartridge to be replaced. See Appeal Br. 60-61. Claim 95 merely recites that the handle of the electrode cartridge is shaped or configured (i.e., grippable) whereby the handle is capable of removing the electrode cartridge from a housing for replacement. The Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s finding that Andrews’ cap 38, which includes a ribbed outer surface, is capable of performing that function. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 12 The Examiner finds Andrews discloses first and second electrical contacts located on a “top side” or top surface of the electrode cartridge (i.e., an outer surface of the electrode cartridge). Final Act. 5 (citing Andrews ¶¶ 36-37). The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s finding. Claim 95 recites that the first and second electrical contacts are “positioned on the electrode cartridge to respectively contact first and second electrical contacts on the housing . . . when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing.” Appeal Br. 61 (emphasis added). Significantly, claim 95 does not positively recite an electrode cartridge in combination with a housing. See Ans. 33 (“the claims are drawn towards ‘an electrode cartridge’ not a housing or apparatus with a housing and electrode cartridge”). Moreover, the use of the term “when” in the limitation reproduced above signals a condition that may not occur (i.e., the electrode cartridge may not be installed in a housing). Therefore, we conclude that the recitation in claim 95 directed to the position of the electrical contacts on the electrode cartridge with respect to the position of the electrical contacts on the housing into which the electrode cartridge is shaped to be installed17,18 does not further limit the structure of the claimed electrode cartridge. 17 The limitation reads as follows: first and second electrical contacts positioned on the electrode cartridge to respectively contact first and second electrical contacts on the housing into which the electrode cartridge is shaped to be installed when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing and further so positioned as to enable the flow path of electrical current into and out of the electrode cartridge to be broken by the single step of pulling the electrode cartridge out of the housing. Amended Appeal Br. 61. 18 There is no dispute on this record that Andrews’ electrode cartridge is shaped to be installed in a housing as recited in claim 95. See Reply Br. 22 (“Andrews’ Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 13 For the reasons set forth above, the anticipation rejection of claim 95 based on Andrews is sustained. b. Claims 65-78 and 87-94 Representative claim 65 is reproduced below. The limitation at issue is italicized. 65. An electrode cartridge configured to generate chlorine and shaped to be installed by a user of a spa into a housing mounted in the spa and comprising: a handle shaped to be grippable by the user of the spa to insert the electrode cartridge into the housing and to pull the electrode cartridge out of the housing for replacement; an electrode holder insertable into said housing and having a circular side surface, the electrode holder positioning first and second electrodes to extend beneath said holder and into said housing, the first and second electrodes being constructed to generate chlorine to purify spa water; sealing means located on said circular side surface so as to define (a) a wet spa water containing portion of the housing and (b) a dry portion of the housing when the electrode cartridge is in an installed position in the housing, the dry portion of the housing being located above the wet spa water containing portion of the housing; the electrode holder being further configured to position the first and second electrodes in spaced apart relation in the wet portion of the housing so as to create a flow path for electrical current between the first and second electrodes; and first and second electrical contacts, each located on a side surface of said electrode cartridge and positioned to respectively contact one of first and second electrical contacts, each located on a side surface of the dry portion of the housing when the electrode cartridge is in the installed position in the housing. electrode housing 46 is shaped to be installed into the upper housing portion 22” (emphasis omitted)). Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 14 Amended Appeal Br. 51-52 (emphasis added). Independent claims 65, 87, and 93 recite that the electrode cartridge comprises first and second electrical contacts, each located or positioned “on a side surface of said electrode cartridge.” Appeal Br. 52, 58, 60 (emphasis added). The Appellant argues that Andrews does not expressly or inherently describe “first and second electrical contacts located on a side surface of an electrode cartridge” as claimed. Appeal Br. 38 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that the “top side” of Andrews’ electrode cartridge “is inherently a surface.” Final Act. 5 (citing Andrews ¶¶ 36-37). However, the Examiner does not explain, in any detail, why the top side or top surface of Andrews’ electrode cartridge is a “side surface” within the scope of claims 65, 87, and/or 93. In the alternative, the Examiner does not explain, in any detail, why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position each of the first and second electrodes on a side surface of Andrews’ electrode cartridge. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445 (the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability). The anticipation rejection of claims 65-69, 73-77, 87-90, and 92-94 and the obviousness rejection of claims 70-72, 78, and 91 based on Andrews are not sustained. 4. Rejection (1) a. Claims 96 and 97 Claims 96 and 97 are reproduced below. The limitations at issue are italicized. 96. The electrode cartridge of claim 15 wherein no electrical wires enter the electrode cartridge. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 15 97. The electrode cartridge of claim 15 wherein no electrical wires are attached to the electrode cartridge. Amended Appeal Br. 61. The Examiner concludes that the recitation “no electrical wires” is a negative limitation and finds that the original disclosure is silent as to whether electrical wires enter the electrode cartridge or are attached thereto as claimed. Final Act. 3. The Appellant argues that Figures 1 and 6-9 show no electrical wires entering or attached to the electrode cartridge. Appeal Br. 44. While the absence of electrical wires in the Appellant’s Figures alone may not be sufficient to show written description support for the negative claim limitation at issue,19 the Appellant contends that the recitation “no electrical wires” is described, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), in the original disclosure for the following reason.20 [T]he embodiment described in the specification employs spring arm contacts on the sides of the electrode cartridge which come into engagement with corresponding contacts on the internal surface of the mating housing to supply power to the electrodes. From these disclosures, one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventors were not employing wires entering or attached to the cartridge to supply power to the electrodes and thus had “actually invented” an electrode cartridge wherein no wires enter or are attached to the cartridge. 19 See Final Act. 3 (explaining that “the mere absence of a positive recitation of a feature in the specification is NOT the basis for its exclusion”). 20 The written description requirement may be satisfied by either an “express” or an “inherent” disclosure. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 16 Appeal Br. 44; see also Reply Br. 23 (contending that spring arm contacts of the sides of the electrode cartridge supply power to the electrodes, rather than employing wires to do so). The Appellant’s explanation is consistent with Figure 1 which shows that “the electrical connection of the electrode cartridge 17 to the controller 13 via electrical leads 103, 105 . . . is completed through a pair of titanium electrical contacts 31, 33, which are molded into the housing 15 [not the electrode cartridge].” Spec. ¶ 30 (emphasis added). The Appellant discloses that “contacts 31, 33 have flat vertical terminals 34, 36 adjacent an inside surface of the housing 15, as well as quick disconnect terminals 35, 37 on the outside of the housing 15. Spec. ¶ 30; see Fig. 1 (showing electrical leads 103, 105 connected to terminals 35, 37). Spring arm portions 57, 59 of the electrodes 53, 55 in the electrode cartridge are said to form electrical contact surfaces with the flat vertical terminals 34, 36 on the housing 15. Spec. ¶ 36; see also Appeal Br. 48 (reciting, in claim 39, that “the electrode cartridge is configured such that the first and second electrical contacts of the electrode cartridge constitute the only respective entry and exit points for electrical current into and out of the electrode cartridge” (emphasis added)). Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the original disclosure provides written description support for an electrode cartridge that does not use wires to supply electrical power to the electrodes and thus has no electrical wires entering or attached to the electrode cartridge as claimed. Therefore, the rejection of claims 96 and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) based on the written description requirement is not sustained. b. Claim 86 Claim 86 is reproduced below. The limitations at issue are italicized. 86. An electrode cartridge comprising: Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 17 a single piece first electrode including a vertical portion constructed to generate chlorine, the vertical portion forming seamlessly into a horizontally extending base portion which then forms seamlessly into an upwardly extending electrical contact arm which is spring biased outwardly away from a side surface of the electrode cartridge and compressible inwardly toward said side surface against the spring bias; and a single piece second electrode including a vertical portion constructed to generate chlorine, the vertical portion forming seamlessly into a horizontally extending base portion which then forms seamlessly into an upwardly extending electrical contact arm which is spring biased outwardly away from a side surface of the electrode cartridge and compressible inwardly toward said side surface against the spring bias. Amended Appeal Br. 57-58. The Examiner finds that the recitation of “seamlessly” in claim 86 “is not supported by the instant specification, as the specification lacks said phrase or equivalents thereof.” Final Act. 3. According to the Appellant, the term “seam” is defined as “‘a line, groove or ridge formed by the abutment of edges.’” Appeal Br. 43 (citation omitted). The Appellant argues that the description of the electrodes as “‘formed as a single piece’ and one portion ‘forms into’ another . . . mean that the junctions between the recited portions are ‘seamless,’ as shown in the drawings.” Appeal Br. 43 (citing Spec. ¶ 33). The limitation at issue, i.e. “seamlessly,” is a negative limitation. Thus, we interpret the term “seamlessly” as used in claim 86 to mean that the “single piece” electrodes do not have seams. The Examiner explains that “[t]he recitation of ‘single piece[]’ does not preclude plural structures assembled together to create said ‘single piece’.” Ans. 34. Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 18 “Claims must always be read in light of the specification.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 300 (CCPA 1982). The Appellant directs our attention to paragraph 33 of the Specification, which is reproduced below. In the illustrative embodiment, the electrodes 53, 55 are each formed as a single piece and each includes a respective rectangular vertical portion 52, 54, which forms into a respective horizontal base portion 56, 58, from which extends respective outwardly curved spring arm electrical contact 57, 59. The electrodes could of course be formed of multiple parts in other embodiments, for example, with separate wet electrode and spring contact components. [Emphasis added.] We find that paragraph 33 distinguishes between a single electrode formed as a single piece and a single electrode formed of multiple parts. It is reasonable to find that a single electrode formed of multiple parts (e.g., a wet electrode component and a spring contact component) has seams joining the separate parts together. Thus, we find that a single electrode formed as a single piece is not formed of multiple parts but rather is formed from a single piece of material and is “seamless.” The Appellant’s Figure 8, illustrating a single, seamless electrode, is consistent with that finding. Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the original disclosure provides written description support for the term “seamless” in claim 86. Therefore, the rejection of claim 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) based on the written description requirement is not sustained. C. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed in part. In summary: Appeal 2021-005150 Application 15/651,709 19 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 86, 96, 97 112(a) Written description 86, 96, 97 65-69, 73- 77, 87-90, 92-95 102(a)(1) Andrews 95 65-69, 73- 77, 87-90, 92-94 44, 45 102(a)(2) Cam 44, 45 15-19, 22, 36, 39-41, 55-64, 79-85 103 Faure, Gale, Powell 15-19, 22, 36, 39-41, 55-64, 79-85 70-72, 78, 91 103 Andrews 70-72, 78, 91 Overall Outcome 95 15-19, 22, 36, 39-41, 44, 45, 55- 94, 96, 97 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART