Ex Parte Classen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2013

10581238 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte EGBERT CLASSEN and BERND MULLER
____________________

Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Egbert Classen and Bernd Muller (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-20. Claims 1-10 and 21
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed generally to “a method for drying in
a household appliance, e.g. a laundry drier, dishwashing machine or shoe
drier.” Spec. 1, ll. 3-4. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
11. A method for drying in a dishwasher, the method
comprising:
(a) subjecting a medium in a container to at least one of
an evaporation step and a sublimation step, whereby the
medium is cooled;
(b) absorbing vapor, that is produced by the medium in
the container, via a reversibly dehydratable material in a sorber,
whereby the reversibly dehydratable material is heated;
(c) supplying air from a processing chamber of the
dishwasher to the cooled medium, whereby the air is cooled and
dehumidified via contact with the cooled medium; and
(d) heating the cooled and dehumidified air on the
reversibly dehydratable material and feeding back the heated air
into the processing chamber of the dishwasher.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Stilwell
Hesse
Tarplee
US 2,960,780
DE 3741652 A1
EP 0777998 A1
Nov. 22, 1960
June 22, 1989
June 11, 1997
Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
3

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hesse in view of Tarplee. Ans. 3.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hesse, Tarplee, and Stilwell. Ans. 5.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Hesse and Tarplee
Claims 11-15
Appellants rely on the arguments presented for the patentability of
claim 11 alone in rebutting the various rejections of dependent claims 12-15.
App. Br. 5-7. Accordingly, the disposition of the rejections of claims 11-15
turns on our analysis of the rejection of claim 11. Appellants present
additional arguments only for dependent claims 16 and 20.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 as unpatentable over Hesse and
Tarplee and finds that Hesse generally teaches the method for drying, but
fails to disclose the specific steps relating to a sorber as claimed. App. Br.
3-4. Hesse teaches a dishwasher with a drying cycle whereby “moisture-
laden air flows from the washing tank (1) through the heat exchanger (9) by
convection or under the effect of a blower (10) and, after cooling and
[condensation] of the contained moisture, returns (8) into the washing tank.”
Hesse, Translated Abstract. The Examiner then turns to Tarplee, which is
actually disclosed in the context of a clothes dryer, but is more generally
titled “Method of saving energy in domestic appliances and appliance with
Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
4
improved energy efficiency,” for the specifics of the claimed sorber-related
steps. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner then goes on to conclude that:
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the drying
method of Hesse to include the steps of cooling the water by
subjecting water in a container to at least one of an evaporation
step and a sublimation step and absorbing vapor that is
produced by the water in the container via a reversibly
dehydratable material of zeolite in a sorber as taught by Tarplee
in order to improve energy efficiency.
Ans. 5.
Appellants do not argue that the combination fails to teach any
elements of the claimed method, but merely that one of skill in the art
“would not have thought to import features of a clothing dryer into the Hesse
dishwasher.” App. Br. 7. Appellants go on to assert that this would be so
because “[t]he operational conditions within a dishwasher are considerably
different from those within a clothing dryer.” Id. Appellants also suggest
that the combination amounts to impermissible hindsight. Id. As the
Examiner responds, however, “Tarplee teaches that the invention relates
particularly to a method for saving energy in a domestic appliance in which
a fluid flow is used.” Ans. 7. Further, the Examiner explains that “both the
Hesse and Tarplee patents are directed to treating circulating air in a dryer
device same as the appellant’s.” Id.
Although Appellants are correct to note that there are differing
operating parameters between a clothes dryer and a dishwasher, we agree
with the Examiner that at least with respect to a drying cycle in a
dishwasher, the two devices operate in a similar enough manner to support
the conclusion of obviousness to one skilled in the art. We do not agree that
the fact that a dishwasher includes additional rinse and wash cycles so
Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
5
drastically changes the principles involved in a separate drying cycle as to
render one inapplicable to the other as Appellants appear to argue.
Appellants’ argument is further diminished by the statement in the
Specification describing the invention as relating to “drying in a household
appliance, e.g. a laundry drier, dishwashing machine or shoe drier.” Spec.
1, ll. 3-4 (emphasis added). We do not rely on this statement in the
Specification for our decision, but simply note that it runs contra Appellants’
present argument that a laundry dryer is so different from a dishwasher.
Accordingly, for the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 11-15 as obvious over the combination of Hesse
and Tarplee.
Claims 16-19
As with claim 11, Appellants present only specific arguments as to the
language of claim 16 and rely on those arguments for the patentability of
claims 17-19, which depend from claim 16. App. Br. 7-8. Accordingly,
claims 16-19 stand or fall together. Appellants repeat their arguments
relating to the combination of Hesse and Tarplee, which we found
unpersuasive supra. App. Br. 7. Appellants then assert that certain steps of
the method are absent from the combination, namely “passing air from the
processing chamber to the reversibly dehydratable material and back into the
processing chamber, such that the air is heated.”1 Id.
Appellants point out that Tarplee teaches that during desorption, “air
circulating through the dryer bypasses the sorption chamber 10.
Accordingly, heat energy being used to conduct the desorption step is never

1 Claim 16 actually recites: “passing air from the processing chamber
to the reversibly dehydratable material and back into the processing
chamber, whereby the air is heated.”
Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
6
transferred from the sorption chamber 10 to the air stream which is passing
back in to the drum D of the dryer.” App. Br. 8. Appellants then assert that
Tarplee, thus, teaches away from the method of claim 16. Id. Appellants,
however, appear to be arguing differences that are not unequivocally found
in claim 16. This is highlighted by Appellants’ statement that “claim 16
specifically recites that during a desorption step air from the processing
chamber is passed to the reversibly dehydratable material and then back into
the processing chamber, whereby the air is heated.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
added). As the Examiner states, “claim 16 does not require the heat energy
being used to conduct the desorption step to be transferred from the sorption
chamber to the air stream,” but only “recites a step of passing air from the
processing chamber to the reversibly dehydratable material and back into the
processing chamber.” Ans. 9. Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate
with the claim scope and we agree with the Examiner that claim 16 does not
include the “during” requirement that Appellants argue.
Further, Appellants admit that in Tarplee “the reversibly dehydratable
material within the sorption chamber 10 is slightly heated because it is
absorbing water that is evaporating from the evaporator/condenser 12.”
Reply Br. 2. Therefore, during the time that Tarplee is circulating air past
the dehydratable material, it would be heated as claimed. The Examiner has
applied a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the claims that is met by the
passing of air as taught by Tarplee and the fact that this does not occur
during desorption is inapposite. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments and sustain the rejection of claims 16-19.
Obviousness over Hesse, Tarplee, and Stilwell
Claim 20 depends from claim 16 and recites additional features
relating to, inter alia, a clean or pre-rinse step. As Appellants state, “claim
Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
7
20 recites desorbing the reversibly dehydratable material in the sorber via
thermal energy and applying at least a portion of the thermal energy to at
least one item to be processed and a processing liquid,” e.g., an item to be
cleaned in the dishwasher and the associated cleaning liquid. App. Br. 9.
According to the Examiner, Stilwell teaches this by way of the “drying
method with the steps of applying a processing liquid (thru 160) to the
fabrics in the processing chamber” and that “[t]he processing liquid is a
washing solution.” Ans. 10 (citing Stilwell col. 7, ll. 45-47).
Appellants argue, and we agree, that “Stilwell … fails to disclose or
suggest any methods in which the heat used to conduct a desorption step
would be transferred to a liquid or to items in a processing chamber of the
Stilwell device during a cleaning step or a pre-rinse step.” App. Br. 9. It is
unclear how the Examiner is suggesting that heat is transferred to the
processing liquid in Stilwell. The portion of Stilwell cited by the Examiner
merely discusses how cleaning liquid in a clothes washer is injected into tub
81 via jets 160. There is no discussion of any heat exchange, nor do we see
an explanation by the Examiner as to how such heat exchange supposedly
occurs in relation to water jets 160. In fact, it is unclear how a “drying
method” has anything to do with the injection of cleaning fluid in Stilwell in
the portion relied upon by the Examiner that discusses the water circulatory
system use for cleaning.
In a portion not referenced by the Examiner, Stilwell discusses that
drying can be accomplished via a dessicant 138a, but that the dessicant is to
be removed and placed in an oven, i.e., completely out of the washer system,
for one hour at 450° F to steam off the moisture. See Stilwell col. 5, ll. 35-
70. The dessicant may also be part of a heat exchanger used in drying,
which can reactivate the dessicant as well, but we see no discussion in
Appeal 2011-001099
Application 10/581,238
8
Stilwell regarding this heat being transferred, either from the heat exchanger
or the dessicant, to the cleaning liquid via jets 160 as suggested by the
Examiner. Id., see also col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 33. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject
claim 20 as obvious over Hesse, Tarplee, and Stilwell.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 11-19. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls