Ex Parte Gerhards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2016

13327788 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/327,788 12/16/2011
95683 7590 10/14/2016
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manfred Gerhards
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.
812714 1015
EXAMINER
SCRUGGS, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANFRED GERHARDS and PETER RODE
Appeal 2015-000130 1,2
Application 13/327,788
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-10 and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the "invention relates to a vacuum cleaner
including a drive unit for generating a suction air stream, a vacuum
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 16,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed June 3, 2014), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 19, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Jan. 21, 2014) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed July 24, 2014).
2 Appellants identify MIELE & CIE under the heading Real Party in
Interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000130
Application 13/327,788
attachment, a separator device disposed between the vacuum attachment and
the drive unit, and a control unit [that] influences the input power to the
drive unit as the manipulated variable." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1 and 13 are the
only independent claims. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce
claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
1. A vacuum cleaner comprising:
a drive unit configured to generate a suction air stream;
a vacuum attachment;
a separator device disposed between the vacuum
attachment and the drive unit;
a sensor configured to measure one or more parameters
that directly correspond to a flow rate of the suction air stream;
and
a control unit configured to influence an input power to the
drive unit as a manipulated variable so as to control the suction
power at the vacuum attachment as the controlled variable based
on the measured one or more parameters that directly correspond
to the flow rate of the suction air stream so that the suction power
at the vacuum attachment is controllable at a predefined level.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Driessen (US 5,881,430, iss. Mar. 16, 1999).
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Driessen and either Zahuranec (US 2007/0151068 Al,
pub. July 5, 2007) or Imamura (US 6,023,814, iss. Feb. 15, 2000).
2
Appeal2015-000130
Application 13/327,788
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Driessen and Albrecht (US 5,286,301, iss. Feb. 15, 1994).
See Final Action 2-5; see Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] vacuum cleaner comprising ... a
sensor configured to measure one or more parameters that directly
correspond to a flow rate of the suction air stream." Appeal Br., Claims
App. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding that Driessen
discloses the claimed sensor. See id. at 4---6; see Final Action 2. More
specifically, Appellants argue that
Driessen fails to disclose a sensor configured to measure one or
more parameters directly corresponding to flow rate of a suction
air stream . . . . Driessen merely describes using pressure
readings within a vacuum chamber and an air channel in
conjunction with the current running through a motor to
indirectly estimate air flow within the vacuum cleaner. See
Driessen, column 9, lines 49[-]67.
Appeal Br. 4. We agree with Appellants' understanding of Driessen. The
noted portion of Driessen states, in relevant part, that
[ t ]he second microprocessor 81 comprises an electrical memory
in which a relationship between the air flow Q in the air channel
29, the suction pressure Hs of the suction unit 23, and the electric
current through the motor 25, i.e. said phase angle cj)rofthe triac
circuit, is stored in the form of a table. Said relationship for the
suction unit 23 has previously been measured or calculated by
means of a physical model of the suction unit 23. The use of the
microprocessor 81 with said electrical memory enables the
magnitude of the air flow Q to be read out of the memory in an
accurate manner and without any significant delay, as a function
of the measured current through the motor 25 and the measured
suction pressure Hs of the suction unit 23, so that the magnitude
3
Appeal2015-000130
Application 13/327,788
of the air flow Q in the vacuum cleaner and in the vacuum
chamber 33 is measured indirectly by means of comparatively
simple and reliable measurements of the suction pressure Hs and
the phase angle