COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Obviousness: [(Section 45(4)]: No patentable advance over the prior art
A vacuum cleaner nozzle having a mouthpiece flange on which slanted
bristles are mounted is refused as the reference discloses a nozzle
having a slanted brush on either side of the suction opening. Five
conflict claims are rejected.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed.
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of a refusal of claims C1, C2, C3, C13 and C15 of patent
application 113,121. The refusal was made under Section 42 of the
Patent Act, and was done by a letter dated December 11, 1974 issued
as the result of re-examination of the claims under Section 45(4)
during conflict proceedings.
The application was filed on May 17, 1971 in the name of Nippon Seal
Co., Ltd. and refers to "Apparatus for Cleaning Textile Articles".
Mr. P. Herbert represented the applicant at the Hearing conducted by
the Patent Appeal Board on June 11, 1975.
This invention relates to a vacuum cleaner nozzle for cleaning textile
articles such as floor coverings. The flat oval shaped nozzle has a
suction opening in the central area which is surrounded by slanted
bristle material. Forward and backward movement of the nozzle along
the surface of the floor enables the slanted bristle material to provide
the required cleaning action.
In the Office letter claims C1, C2, C3, C13 and C15 are rejected
for failing to patentably distinguish over the following prior art:
U.S. 3,217,352 - November 16, 1965 - Evans et al
3,421,171 - January 14, 1969 - Tsuruzawa
Japanese Patent 21324/1963 October 14, 1963 - Ota.
The Office letter stated (in part);
Conflicting claims C1, C2 and C3 are rejected in
view of the above cited United States Patent
3,217,352, Evans et al. These claims are so
broad that they read directly on the drawings and
disclosure of the above patent specification.
Claim C1 reads on Evans et al drawings as follows:
Claims C1 Evans et al drawings
Apparatus for cleaning Figs. 3 and 4
textile articles ...
... a take-up device Figs. 4, ref. 10
... characterized in that it Figs. 3 and 4
has a lower surface with a ref. 21, 30, 36 and 37
take-up opening therein,
and that at least a por- Figs. 3 and 4
tion of the said lower ref. 40
surface is formed of
slanted bristle material,
the free ends of each of
the slanted bristles
being directed towards
the take-up opening.
The additional limitations, that the slanted bristle
material is detachably fixed to the flange of the
nozzle and that it is arranged in one strip, defined
in the dependent claims C2 and C3 respectively, are
described in Evans et al disclosure column 3, lines
6-8 and shown in Figure 6 references 22 and 25.
Claims C13, and C15 are rejected as not patentable
over United States Patent 3,217,352, Evans et al in
view of the teachings of either United States Patent
3,421,171, Tsuruzawa or Japanese Patent 21324/1963,
Ota.
These claims read on Evans et al drawings Figures 3
and 4 in all respects except that the slanted bristle
material of Evans et al consisting of conventional
brush bristles, has been replaced by "a pile fabric
comprising a fabric matrix with bristles projecting
therefrom wherein bristles forming the pile, slant
approximately the same angle to the fabric".
It is held, however, that such a substitution does
not constitute patentable difference, since it would
be obvious to those skilled in the art in view of the
common knowledge as shown by the teachings of the
disclosures of either Tsuruzawa or Ota, each of which
describe such pile fabrics and their applications as
brushing pads in cleaning devices.
The applicant in his response dated March 11, 1975 to the Office
letter stated" (in part):
It is respectfully submitted that there are fundamental
differences between the bristles of the reference,
Evans et al, and those disclosed and claimed in the
present invention. Figures 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Evans
et al clearly indicate that both the front and back
brushes are arranged in the form of slanted bristle
tufts of relatively straight and long lengths. As
a result, the cleaning of a rug or similar surface
utilizing the device of Evans et al is conducted
"linearly". The cleaning of a rug or similar surface
utilizing the device of the present invention is
conducted "aerially" since the slanted bristle
strips 5 and 6 are covered with the bristles on
their entire surfaces. Thus, there exists a
fundamental difference in the principle of operation
between the two devices as well as different princi-
ples of construction.
In order to more clearly understand the patentable
distinctions of the present invention over the cited
references, the applicant will explain further the
theories behind each of the particular designs.
In Evans et al, the angle of inclination of the bristles
to the surface-to-be-cleaned is quite large which can
be clearly seen in Figures 3 and 4 of the reference.
The bristles therefore cannot contact the dust particles
themselves and pick up the dust between the bristles
themselves. The bristles of the reference sweep and
gather the dust and dirt for entry into the respective
chambers. The apparatus of Evans et al is designed to
blow the dust and dirt up into the chambers to be taken
up through the take-up opening to be sucked into the
vacuum cleaner itself.
The principle of operation of the device of the present
application is patentably distinct thereover. The
present device utilizes thickly implanted bristles
which have a relatively small angle of inclination.
The bristles effectively contact the dust and dirt on
the rug and securely hold this dirt on the bristles.
In other words, instead of sweeping up the dirt into
the appropriate chambers, the present device "picks up"
the dirt and dust by securing it to the bristles
themselves.
The device as claimed in the present invention, by its
novel construction, provides a means to remove the dirt
or dust from the bristles. The automatic dust removal
system is a further novel feature of the device of the
present construction.
The Evans patent relates to a vacuum cleaner nozzle having an elongated
opening which communicates with a source of suction. A set of elongated
brushes with their ends angled downwardly toward the opening are mounted
on either side of the opening. Claim 1 of this patent reads:
A cleaning tool adapted for use with a suction-type
cleaner, including a rug cleaning tool comprising a
generally rectangular housing having formed therein
at least one chamber in the top of said housing and
a plurality of chambers in the bottom of said housing,
the bottom chambers including a middle chamber and
front and back chambers formed on opposite sides of
said middle chamber, a vacuum outlet communicating
with said middle chamber, the vacuum outlet being
adapted to be connected to a vacuum source, said mid-
dle chamber having side walls terminating in a pair of
lips, a pair of brushes, one mounted in each of said
front and back chambers, brush mounting means to bias
said brushes into engagement with the surface to be
cleaned, said brushes being inclined so as to converge
toward said middle chamber, a sole plate partially
covering said front and back chambers, means for
attaching said sole plate to said housing, said hou-
sing including passageways between said front and
back chambers and said top chamber for providing air
flow between said top and said front and back chambers,
over said brushes in the direction of said brush
bristles so as to clean said brushes and over said lips
into said middle chamber, said cleaning tool including
an attachment useful for cleaning hard surfaces, said
attachment being secured in said middle chamber by
means engaging the side walls of said middle chamber,
said attachment having an upper surface which engages
the tips of said brushes and said lips to cut off the
air flow over said brushes in said front and back
chambers, said attachment having a central chamber, a
strip brush at least partially surrounding said central
chamber, said attachment having a passageway therein
between said central chamber and said middle chamber.
The Tsuruzawa and Ota patents relate to brushes for cleaning which have
a surface of short plies leaning in one direction at an angle to the
base of the brush. When using a brush of this type the cleaning action
is accomplished by movement in one direction only whereby the inclina-
tion of the brush ends tends to remove dirt or lint from clothing by a
"ploughing" action.
As stated this application relates to an apparatus for cleaning textile
articles. This apparatus is characterized by a central suction opening
which is surrounded by a flat mouthpiece flange. Slanted bristle
material is disposed on the flange and the free ends of the bristles
are directed toward the opening. The apparatus is moved back and
forth along the surface of the article to be cleaned.
When the apparatus is moved in the forward cleaning stroke the
slanting bristles on one side of the opening will "comb" and retain
the fluff or other impurities from the textile surfaces. On the
return stroke these impurities are released from the bristles and will
be sucked up by the vacuum in the central opening.
At the Hearing the applicant emphasized that Evans' use of a multiple
chamber construction to prevent the nozzle from adhering to the
surface is obtained by his simpler one chamber and slanted bristle
construction. In addition he stated that the angle of the bristles
enables his device to pick up and retain the dust and dirt more
effectively than Evans. We agree with the applicant that there are
structural differences between his device and that of the patent,
but we must consider the structure as described in the refused claims.
The comments of the court, in Lowe Martin Co. Ltd. v. Office Specialty
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1930) Ex. C.R. 181, are of interest: "The
mere carrying forward of the original thought, a change only in form,
proportion or degree, doing the same thing in the same way, by
substantially the same means, with better results is not such an in-
vention as will sustain a patent" (page 187 line 9), and "It is always
necessary to consider the rights of the general public to avoid mono-
polies on such simple devices as would occur to anyone familiar with
the art." (emphasis added)
The question is whether claims C1, C2, C3, C13 and C15 disclose 3
patentable advance in the art. Claim C1 reads:
Apparatus for cleaning textile articles, particularly
carpets, floor coverings and other kinds of floor
surfaces as well as padded furniture, which apparatus
includes a take-up device for removing dust, fluff and
the like, which device is movable to and fro along the
surface to be cleaned; said take-up device characte-
rized in that it has a lower surface with a take-up
opening therein, and that at least a portion of the
said lower surface is formed of slanted bristle mate-
rial, the free ends of each of the slanted bristles
being directed towards the take-up opening.
On considering the difference between the cited art and claim 1,
it is observed that the Evans reference discloses all the elements
of claim 1 as well as their relationship with each other. In
particular the part which states "that at least a portion of the
said lower surface is formed of slanted bristle material the free
ends of each of the slanted bristles being directed toward the
take-up opening," is fully disclosed by Evans. Claim C1, in our
view, therefore lacks patentable subject matter.
Claims C2 and C3, which depend on C1, introduce a flange capable of
being attached to the nozzle, and claims the use of detachable bristle
material. These features are shown in the Evans citation. Attaching
the bristle material directly to the flange, or to an adjacent member,
is not patentably significant. Accordingly our comments with
respect to claim C1 apply equally to these claims.
Claim C13 differs from Claim C1 in that the slanted bristle material
is replaced by "a pile fabric comprising a fabric matrix with bristles
projecting therefrom wherein bristles forming the pile, slant at
approximately the same angle to the fabric." Both the Ota and Tsuruzawa
patents relate to clothes cleaning brushes which use a pile fabric of
the same texture as defined in this claim. The applicant's use of
this known material to replace the bristles found in the Evans is not
directed to a patentable advance in the art. The Board is mindful,
however, that when assessing an alleged invention the combination of a
claim as a whole must be considered. In any event claim C13, in our
view, lacks patentable subject matter, as no new result has been
achieved, nor a result which can be considered to have flowed from an
inventive step.
Claim C15, which depends on C13, refers to the aperture extending
longitudinally in a predetermined direction and in which the bristles
slope in the same direction. These features are shown in the Evans
patent.
We are satisfied that claims C1 to C3, C13 and C15 fail to disclose any
patentable advance in the art. The applicant has achieved a result with
a change only in forming. the same thing in the same away, by
substantially the same means, as is taught in the prior art. (Vide, Lowe
Martin v. O.S.M., supra)
The Board recommends that the decision to refuse these claims be
affirmed.
J.F. Hughes
Assistant Chairman
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and refuse to
allow claims C1, C2, C3, C13 and C15. The applicant has six months
within which to appeal this decision under the provision of Section
44. of the Patent Act.
A.M. Laidlaw
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull
this 7th. day of July 1975
Agent for Applicant
George H. Riches & Associates,
67 Yonge St.,
Toronto 1, Ontario.