Ex Parte ABE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2019

14764028 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2019)

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