Ex Parte Ackermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2013

10583628 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte UWE ACKERMANN and LOTHAT DITTMER
____________

Appeal 2011-006852
Application 10/583,628
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006852
Application 10/583,628

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Uwe Ackermann and Lothar Dittmer (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 13-19, 21,
23 and 25-27. Claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 24 are canceled. Claims 20 and 22 are
objected to as containing allowable subject matter but depending from a
rejected claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 10, with emphasis added, is reproduced below:
10. A drier, comprising:
a rotary drum that can be fed through a feed
opening, through which drum process air is able to
flow from a rear wall into an end plate having two
openings adjacent to the feed opening; and
a drying basket with a lattice type basket
projecting into the drum, the drying basket
including two longitudinal supports in the form of
wires, the supports comprising integral connecting
devices that each include a bent end section and a
bent support section located between the bent end
section and the longitudinal support, wherein the
basket is supported demountably on the end plate,
and wherein the basket is mounted by inserting the
bent end sections into the openings in the end plate
and allowing the bent support sections to rest
against the end plate.

PRIOR ART
Czech US 4,720,925 Jan. 26, 1988
Asada JP 09-220399A Aug. 26, 1977
Thorn GB 1 491 852 Nov. 16, 1977
Palfrey DE 27 06 595 Nov. 24, 1977

Appeal 2011-006852
Application 10/583,628

3
Maytag Appliances Sakes Co., Maytag Neptune® Dryer Use & Care
Guide (2004) (hereafter “Maytag”).

GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 10, 13, 16-18, 21, 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Asada and Thorn or Palfrey.
2. Claims 14, 15, 19, 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Asada and Thorn or Palfrey and Czech and Maytag.

OPINION
Rejections based on Asada and Thorn or Palfrey
The Examiner finds that Asada discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 10 “except for having two openings adjacent to the feed
opening, wherein the basket is mounted by inserting the bent end sections
into the openings in the end plate, including two basket openings disposed
near opposing ends of the end plate.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds
that both Thorn and Palfrey “teach having two openings adjacent to a feed
opening, wherein a basket is mounted by inserting end sections into
openings including two basket openings disposed near opposing ends of an
end plate.” Ans. 7 (citations omitted). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify the Asada et al. reference, to include
having two openings adjacent to the feed opening, wherein the basket is
mounted by inserting the bent end sections into the openings in the end
plate, including two basket openings disposed near opposing ends of the end
plate” because “Applicant is combining prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results.” Ans. 7-8.
Appeal 2011-006852
Application 10/583,628

4
Appellants argue that neither Thorn nor Palfrey discloses “openings
which receive the bent end sections of the longitudinal supports of the
drying basket [that] are located in the end plate located at the front of the
dryer.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis added). We agree. In both Thorn and Palfrey
the openings are located in the dryer’s door, which is not what the Examiner
identifies as the end plate. See Thorn, col. 2, ll. 116-121; Palfrey, fig.15 and
Ans. 4. Neither Asada, Thorn nor Palfrey describes “an end plate having
two openings adjacent to the feed opening” as required by independent claim
10. Thus, the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness as the proposed combination would not result in the claimed
invention.
For these reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
10 and claims 13-15, 23 and 25 which depend therefrom.
Claim 16 similarly requires “an end plate . . . including two basket
openings . . . with each of the basket openings receiving one of the bent end
sections.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 and
claims 17-19, 26 and 27 which depend therefrom.
Claim 21 similarly requires the act of “providing . . . an end plate . . .
including two basket openings . . . inserting each bent end section into one of
the basket openings.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
21 and claim 22 which depends therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 10, 13-19, 21, 23 and 25-27 are
REVERSED.

REVERSED
Appeal 2011-006852
Application 10/583,628

5
mls