Ex Parte ABE et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 1, 201914764028 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/764,028 83377 7590 EGL/Panasonic P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 07/28/2015 KuniakiABE 07/01/2019 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11329/462 5487 EXAMINER ISKRA, JOSEPH W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KUNIAKI ABE, MASAKI SHIBUYA, and YUJI HAYAKAWA Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a Decision on Appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9, which constitute all the claims pending in this Application. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 1 We refer to the prosecuting examiner as "the Examiner," and the appealing party as "Appellant." Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to a heating cooker provided with a steam generator which supplies steam into a cavity." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. A heating cooker comprising: a cavity configured to accommodate an object to be heated therein; and a steam generator disposed outside the cavity and configured to supply steam to the cavity, the steam generator including: a boiler having a first side wall, a second side wall, a bottom wall, a water inlet, a drain outlet, and a steam discharge port, the boiler configured to generate steam by heating water; a water supply pipe connected to the water inlet and configured to supply water to the boiler; a drainage pipe connected to the drain outlet and extending to a drainage pipe outlet below the drain outlet by way of a curved portion thereof having a shape projecting upward from the drain outlet to an uppermost portion and downward therefrom, such that the drainage pipe drains water from an inside of the boiler; and a steam supply pipe connected to the steam discharge port and configured to supply the steam generated by the boiler to the cavity, wherein the bottom wall of the boiler has an inner bottom surface downwardly inclined from the first side wall toward the second side wall which faces the first side wall, the water inlet is in the first side wall in a vicinity of the inner bottom surface, and the drain outlet is in the second side wall at a position in the vicinity of the inner bottom surface and lower than the water inlet. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Young US 3,680,894 Aug. 1, 1972 Williams et al. US 7,049,551 B2 May 23, 2006 2 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Kaneko et al. Boettner et al. Frock et al. Sand et al. 2 US 2007/0183555 Al US 7,677,271 B2 US 7,853,130 B2 EP 1437547 (A2) Aug.9,2007 Mar. 16, 2010 Dec. 14, 2010 July 14, 2004 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 3 Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, and Sand. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, and Kaneko. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, Kaneko, and Young. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, and Boettner. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-5 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, and Sand Appellant argues each of claims 1, 4, and 5 separately, and claims 2 and 3 together. See App. Br. 6-12. We select claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 for review, with remaining claim 3 standing or falling with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 1 The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Williams, but relies on Frock for more specifically disclosing the recited location of the water 2 We rely on the machine-generated translation of this document. 3 "The Examiner withdraws their position with regard to 35 U.S.C. [§] 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [§] 112, sixth paragraph." Ans. 2, 4. 3 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 inlet, and on Sand for disclosing the recited shape of the drainage pipe. See Final Act. 4---6. Regarding the limitation of the drain outlet also being in a "side wall at a position in the vicinity of the inner bottom surface," the Examiner relies on this being an obvious variation as it "amounts to a rearrangement of the parts" and determines that "such a rearrangement would not impact the operation of the subject device as discharge of the fluid would still occur." Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. The Examiner also considers this rearrangement to be "an obvious matter of design choice." Final Act. 5. Appellant initially discusses Williams, and identifies certain shortcomings regarding Williams, but then concludes "[ t ]he Examiner acknowledges that Williams et al. do not disclose the recited features of the boiler, or the water inlet and drain outlet recited by claim 1." App. Br. 8. The Examiner has not relied upon Williams alone for disclosing all the limitations of claim 1. Instead, as indicated above, the Examiner combines Williams with teachings from Frock and Sand, and relies on a rearrangement of parts, to conclude that the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious. Hence, Appellant's focus on Williams alone is not persuasive of Examiner error. In addressing the Examiner's combination of Williams and Frock, Appellant contends, "Frock et al. does not disclose the recited bottom wall configuration." App. Br. 9. We understand Appellant to be referring to the limitation, "the bottom wall of the boiler has an inner bottom surface downwardly inclined." On this point, the Examiner relies on both Williams and Sand as disclosing this feature. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3; see also Williams 3:8-10 (disclosing "[t]he bottom of the pool may be disposed at an angle to the horizontal"), Fig. 2; Sand ,r 22 ("a funnel-shaped bottom 14"), 4 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Fig. 1. Thus, Appellant's assertion regarding Frock as failing to disclose this limitation is not persuasive. Appellant also contends that Frock fails to disclose "the recited drain outlet." App. Br. 9. We understand Appellant to be referring to the limitation, "the drain outlet is in the second side wall at a position in the vicinity of the inner bottom surface." As noted above, the Examiner relies on this limitation being obvious as a matter of "rearrangement of the parts." Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Appellant acknowledges the Examiner's reliance on this "rearrangement of parts" rationale, but contends there are "recited features ... offering distinct advantages of scale reduction that is not obtained by the combination of [the] cited references."4 App. Br. 9; see also id. at 10-11. Appellant's contention is not persuasive because the benefit of scale reduction does not appear to be associated with a drain outlet in the second side wall at a position near the inner bottom surface as recited in the claim. Rather, a drain outlet being positioned anywhere in the vicinity of the bottom surface would create water flow thereby reducing scale. For example, Sand discusses "cleaning a device for generating steam" ( consistent with Appellant's scale reduction). 5 Sand ,r 16. As shown in Sand's Figure 1, the water reservoir includes a drain outlet located in the bottom of thereof. Hence, Appellant's contentions regarding Frock, the 4 Appellant addresses the claimed boiler's design as intentionally creating water flow (i.e., the boiler bottom is "downwardly inclined") "so that the discharging of a scale is accelerated." Reply Br. 2. 5 Paragraph 26 of Sand addresses draining water "to flush out dirt and lime particles, for example, for a steam generation process." As previously indicated, Sand also teaches an inclined bottom. See Sand ,r 22, Fig. 1. 5 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Examiner's reliance on "rearrangement of the parts," and Appellant's "recited features ... offering distinct advantages of scale reduction" are not persuasive of Examiner error. Final Act. 5; Reply Br. 9. 6 Appellant reiterates the contention that "[l]ike Williams et al. and Frock et al., Sand et al. disclose a water outlet in the bottom of [the] water chamber." App. Br. 10. However, as explained above, the claimed location of the water outlet being in a side, and not a bottom, of the boiler was a matter of rearranging parts. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Thus, Appellant's contention focusing on "the combination of cited references" (App. Br. 10) is not persuasive when, instead, the Examiner relied on this side location being obvious based on a "rearrangement of the parts" because "such a rearrangement would not impact the operation of the subject device." Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. In summation, and in view of the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over Williams, Frock, and Sand. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, "the drainage pipe includes a straight pipe portion that extends laterally from the drain outlet." The Examiner finds, "Sand teaches the drainage pipe (27) includes a straight pipe portion (28) that extends laterally from the drain outlet (25)." Final 6 Appellant further contends, "there is no basis in the appellants' specification to assert that the position of the drain outlet is somehow insignificant." Reply Br. 2. The Examiner has not indicated that outlet placement is insignificant, only that outlet placement may be changed or relocated without affecting its operation or function. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. 6 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Act. 6 (referencing Sand Fig. 1). Appellant contends, "[t]he drain pipe (28) does not extend laterally from the drain outlet (25)," instead, "the drain pipe extends vertically below the drain outlet." App. Br. 11. A review of Figure 1 of Sand discloses a 90Q bend immediately following vertical outlet 25, and a subsequent laterally extending portion 28 identified by the Examiner. Appellant contends that this laterally extending portion 28 does not teach the recited drainage pipe. App. Br. 11. However, Appellant does not indicate where this limitation requires the lateral portion to follow immediately or directly after the outlet. Instead, claim 2 simply recites "a straight pipe portion that extends laterally from the drain outlet," and portion 28 of Sand meets this limitation. Accordingly, based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 3 as being obvious over Williams, Frock, and Sand. Claim 4 Claim 4 includes the limitation of "two heater units both of which are disposed at positions higher than the water inlet and the drain outlet." The Examiner relies on Frock for such a teaching. Final Act. 6 (referencing Frock Fig. 1). Appellant acknowledges the Examiner's reliance on Frock's heating elements 20, but contends that Appellant's heaters are also arranged to "bracket the water level (H5) in the boiler (17)" and to "insure[] that water is always filled in water supply pipe (18) and drainage pipe (20) during the generation of steam." App. Br. 11-12. Claim 4 is silent as to any "bracketing" or any "maintaining supply during steam generation" as Appellant asserts. Claim 4 simply recites "two heater units both of which are disposed at positions higher than the water inlet and the drain outlet." 7 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Appellant does not explain how Frock's heating elements 20 fail to meet this limitation. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as being obvious over Williams, Frock, and Sand. Claim 5 Claim 5 recites, "wherein a height of the drainage pipe outlet is substantially equal to a height of a drainage pipe inlet." The Examiner relies on a "rearrangement of the parts," and "design choice," to conclude that this limitation would have been obvious. Final Act. 6. Appellant states that "[ r ]ather than being merely a design choice ... the configuration of the drainage pipe provides the distinct advantages set forth above." App. Br. 12. The "advantages set forth above" is a reference to Paragraph 114 of Appellant's Specification discussing flow speed ("That is, the larger level difference ~h2, the faster a flow speed of water in drainage pipe 20 becomes."). Appellant contends that these "advantages are not suggested or disclosed by the cited references." App. Br. 12. First, Appellant does not explain how there can be an advantage of flow speed when the inlet and outlet are "substantially equal" in height as claimed. Second, the advantages addressed by Appellant rely on gravity and Appellant does not explain how this same natural property does not, likewise, operate with respect to the Examiner's combination. Third, regarding the Examiner's reliance on "a rearrangement of the parts," we note that Williams teaches an exhaust port "located at a height above the inlet port." Williams 6: 1-2. Frock, on the other hand, illustrates water inlet 26 above outlet 28. See Frock Fig. 1. Since the prior art discloses two different 8 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 height arrangements between an inlet and an outlet, Appellant does not explain how a "rearrangement of the parts" by one skilled in the art would fail to result in the third possibility, i.e., their height being "substantially equal," as recited. Nor does Appellant explain how such a rearrangement would impact their operation such that discharge would no longer occur. See Final Act. 6. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 as being obvious over Williams, Frock, and Sand. The rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, and Kaneko Claim 6 depends directly from claim 1, recites a drainage tank, and further recites, "wherein the drainage pipe outlet is directly above the drainage tank." The Examiner relies on Kaneko for teaching this limitation, and particularly "drain tank 14." Final Act. 7. Appellant replicates Figure 4 of Kaneko and states, "[i]n contrast to claim 6, Kaneko et al. do not suggest or disclose a drainage pipe outlet is directly above the drainage tank." App. Br. 13. However, a quick review of Figure 11 of Kaneko dispels Appellant's statement. This is because Figure 11 clearly depicts the outlet of Kaneko's water drain pipe 53 "directly above" drain tank 14. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, and Kaneko. The rejection of claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, Kaneko, and Young Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 7 and 8. See App. Br. 13-14. We address each claim separately. 9 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and additionally requires an extension pipe that allows water to flow to the drainage tank. As with claim 6, the Examiner relies on Kaneko for disclosing this limitation. 7 Final Act. 8 (referencing "water drain pipe 53"). Appellant addresses Kaneko's pipe 53, contending that this pipe "is not connected to a drainage pipe outlet ... but instead is connected to a cylindrical pot (51)." App. Br. 13-14. If there is any doubt as to the lower outlet of Kaneko's pipe 53 (not its upper connection to pot 51 ), Kaneko expressly states that drainage tank 14 collects drainage water "and receives the lower end of the water drain pipe 53." Kaneko ,r 111 (referencing "FIG. 11"). Accordingly, Appellant's contentions regarding claim 7 are not persuasive of Examiner error. Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites, "wherein an end of the extension pipe on a downstream side is directly above the drainage tank." Appellant again references Figure 4 of Kaneko ( as in claim 6 above) stating that "pipe (53) is below the pot (51) and not directly above the drainage tank (14)." App. Br. 14. However, as above, a review of Figure 11 of Kaneko dispels this assertion. Accordingly, Appellant's contentions regarding claim 8 are not persuasive of Examiner error. 7 Regarding the Examiner's reliance on Young, Appellant states "[ t ]he addition of Young does not overcome the deficiencies of the remaining cited references" and that even if Young were to be considered, "the recited extension pipe and drainage pipe would still not be suggested or disclosed." App. Br. 14. 10 Appeal2018-008792 Application 14/764,028 The rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Williams, Frock, Sand, and Boettner Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites, "wherein the drainage pipe is made of a flexible resin." The Examiner relies on Boettner for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 7. Appellant initially re-addresses the limitations of claim 1 (see App. Br. 15), but these arguments are not persuasive in view of our discussion above. Thereafter, Appellant discusses the "advantages of the claimed drainage pipe" (App. Br. 15), but does not explain how the Examiner's reliance on Boettner for disclosing the limitations of claim 9 is misplaced. Instead, Appellant addresses the corrugated shape of Boettner' s pipe, not its flexible construction. See App. Br. 15; see also Boettner Abstract ("[a] flexible collapsible corrugated drain pipe"). Accordingly, Appellant's contentions regarding claim 9 are not persuasive of Examiner error. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation