Application of Krammes, Patent Appeal No. 6938.
Court | United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
Citation | 314 F.2d 813,137 USPQ 60 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6938. |
Parties | Application of Don C. KRAMMES. |
Decision Date | 20 March 1963 |
Richard R. Fitzsimmons, North Canton, Ohio, for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 18, 19, 23 through 27 and 29 of appellant's application for a patent for a floor scrubber. One claim stands allowed.
The following claims are representative:
The references relied on by the examiner and board are:
Deutscher 1,687.283 Oct. 9, 1928 Breton 1,690,472 Nov. 6, 1928 Jerome 1,892.347 Dec. 27, 1932 Sussman et al. 2,333,451 Nov. 2, 1943 Gerstmann 2,639,005 May 19, 1953 Lau (Denmark) 67,806 Oct. 4, 1948
The invention relates to a unitary device for scrubbing and drying floors. The device includes a main or "dual-function" receptacle which can dispense clean detergent solution to the floor and provides a space for receiving dirty detergent solution from the floor through a suction nozzle arranged for contact with the floor. Clean detergent solution is placed directly in the main receptacle. A collapsible receptacle or bag is disposed in the main receptacle so that it initially floats in a collapsed state on top of the clean solution. A separating chamber is superimposed on the main receptacle in communication with the air stream from the suction nozzle to separate the dirty solution recovered from the floor from the air stream and permit it to fall into the collapsible receptacle or bag. Thus essentially the same space in the main receptacle which holds the clean solution before it is dispensed subsequently accommodates the dirty solution without contaminating any remaining clean solution. The separating chamber is hinged to the main receptacle so that the open end of the collapsible receptacle or bag may be removably supported at the top of the latter.
Deutscher discloses a floor cleaner provided with a rotatable scrubbing brush and a wick disposed in a suction nozzle and in engagement with the floor. The device includes a tank from which cleaning liquid is supplied to the brush by gravity. A motor driven fan draws air through the wick a suction passage and the top part of a tank in which most of the dirty water drawn from the floor is separated from the air and permitted to fall into the tank.
Breton discloses scrubber and dryer constructions in which dirty water is drawn up from the floor by suction means including a fan and is collected in a receptacle.
Jerome discloses a unitary floor washing and drying machine wherein a flexible, water-impervious diaphragm divides a removable container into a lower chamber for cleaning liquid to be dispensed and an upper chamber for receiving dirty liquid recovered from the floor. The cleaning liquid is supplied by gravity to a rotary brush and means are provided for collecting dirty liquid in a trough where the action of a gear pump "will suck it out" and pass it into the upper chamber above the diaphragm.
Sussman et al. relates to a ball type marking device. Suitable dispensing pressure is imposed on the marking fluid by inflating a collapsible bag which has its upper end confined between the upper end of the fluid container and a rubber bulb member and can expand into space initially occupied by the ink as the level of the ink drops.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Mouttet
...matter of presentation with no legal significance. See In re Bush, 49 CCPA 752, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (1961) (Rich, J.); In re Krammes, 50 CCPA 1099, 314 F.2d 813, 816–17 (1963). While we recognize that there may be some cases in which relevant factual determinations inhere in such characteriza......
-
Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Soto
...legal significance." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 816-17 (CCPA 1963)). [4] Agazzi '640 uses reference number 1027 for both the combiner circuit and the laser drive electronics. [5] Because......
-
Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Soto
...legal significance." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA 1961); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 816-17 (CCPA 1963)). [4] Agazzi '640 uses reference number 1027 for both the combiner circuit and the laser drive electronics. [5] Because w......
-
Ex parte Jones
... ... parte ANGELA RICHARDS JONES Technology Center 3600 Appeal 2018-008427Application 12/236, 253United States Patent and ... application'," but does not "cite[] to any ... portion of the ... Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 817 (CCPA 1963) (“It is ... well ... ...