Ex Parte Grunert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2013

12313865 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KLAUS GRUNERT
____________________

Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JILL D. HILL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, and 13-21. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A domestic appliance for care of items of washing,
comprising:
a drum for accepting the items of washing;
a process air supply through which an air stream is able
to be directed through the drum;
a mesh filter for separation of lint from the air stream;
a scraper that collects the lint at an edge of the mesh filter
outside the process air supply;
a lint remover for removing the lint which has collected
outside the process air supply on the mesh filter; and
a rinser for washing the lint off the mesh filter with
rinsing fluid.

REJECTIONS1
1. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement;

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 as unpatentable over Hong and Crouser (U.S.
3,571,841; iss. Mar. 23, 1971), claim 3 as unpatentable over Hong, Crouser,
and Fumagalli, and claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 as unpatentable over Hong,
Crouser, and Ikemizu. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

3
2. Claims 1, 3-10, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite;
3. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Long (U.S. 3,027,653; iss. Apr. 3, 1962), Grunert
(DE 19919407 A1; pub. Nov. 2, 2000), and Chabanne (EP 0648885 B1;
pub. Apr. 28, 1999);
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Long, Grunert, Chabanne, and Fumagalli (EP 0816549 A2; pub. Jan. 7,
1998);
5. Claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Long, Grunert, Chabanne, and Ikemizu (U.S.
2008/0307667 A1; pub. Dec. 18, 2008);
6. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hong (U.S. 2006/0123854 A1; pub. Jun. 15,
2006) and Yoshimi (JP 07-236796; pub. Sept. 12, 1995);
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hong, Yoshimi, and Fumagalli; and
8. Claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hong, Yoshimi, and Ikemizu.

OPINION
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-21 – Written Description
Claims 1, 11 and 17 each include a scraper that collects lint at an edge
of the mesh filter outside the process air supply. The Examiner asserts that
the application as originally filed discusses use of a squeegee and does not
support the claimed “scraper” because the structures and functions of a
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

4
scraper and a squeegee are different. Ans. 5, 11. The Examiner explains
that
[s]ince the claimed scraper 14 is located downstream of filter 8,
it will not make any contact with the lint 9 collected on the
upper surface of the mesh filter 8. The sole figure of [the]
current application also clearly shows the claimed scraper 14
located within the air duct 4 in process air supply P. It is not
clear how a scraper 14 located downstream of mesh filter 14
and within process air supply P wipes the lint 9 accumulated on
top of the filter 8 and collects the lint 9 at an edge 18 outside
the process air supply P. Therefore, this constitutes new matter
not supported by the originally filed specification.
Ans. 11.
As Appellant notes, the Specification explains that a squeegee is used
to wipe lint from the mesh filter and the Figure is a schematic illustration of
the dryer. Reply Br. 26-27 (citing Spec. p. 1, ll. 13-18). Appellant explains
that neither the Specification nor the claims limits the location of the scraper
to upstream or downstream of the mesh filter. Reply Br. 28.
The Examiner’s explanation of squeegee/scraper positioning relative
to the mesh filter is not supported by evidence and fails to establish why the
claimed scraper is not supported by the originally-filed application. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17, or dependent claims 3-10,
13-16, and 18-21, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement due to the inclusion of the term “scraper.”
Claims 11 and 17 each further recite that the scraper moves lint to an
edge of the mesh filter that is outside the process air supply and not exposed
to the air stream. The Examiner additionally asserts that the application as
originally filed does not disclose a portion of the mesh filter not being
exposed to the air stream. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

5
Appellant contends that the Examiner has failed to explain why one
skilled in the art would not have appreciated that the originally filed
application disclosed a portion of the mesh filter not being exposed to the air
stream. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 9-11. However, the Examiner explains
that one skilled in the art would not have appreciated a disclosure of the “not
exposed to the air stream” limitation because the scope of the phrase is
different than the scope of “outside the air stream” disclosed in the
Specification. Ans. 14. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the phrase “outside the air stream” can be re-
phrased as “not exposed to the air stream” without departing from the scope
of the original disclosure and without adding new matter. App. Br. 14-15;
Reply Br. 23 (citing MPEP § 2163.07). Appellant explains that the lint
collected at an edge of the mesh filter is not exposed to the air stream if it is
outside the air stream. Reply Br. 42.
The phrase “not exposed to the air stream” has a different meaning
from “outside the air stream.” Being outside of the air stream does not
preclude exposure to the air stream. While the edge of the mesh filter does
not appear to be directly exposed to (i.e., within) the air stream in
Appellant’s Figure, the edge of the mesh filter does appear to be exposed to
(i.e., in fluid communication with) the air stream via some passage that
provides for transport of the lint from the body of the mesh filter to the edge
of the mesh filter, and ultimately to the lint remover. Thus, we are not
convinced that the application as originally filed provides support for the
edge of the mesh filter not being exposed to the air stream, as claimed.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 17, and
dependent claims 13-16 and 18-21, as failing to comply with the written
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

6
description requirement due to the inclusion of the phrase “not exposed to
the air stream.”

Claims 1, 3-10, and 17-21 – Indefiniteness
The Examiner asserts that claims 1, 3-10, and 17-21 are indefinite
because it is unclear how the claimed scraper collects lint or what kind of
structure the claimed scraper has that would enable the scraper to collect the
lint. Ans. 6. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s rejection. App. Br. 15-
17; Reply Br. 43-49.
We see no basis for the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner
has failed to identify any ambiguity in the claims. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 17-21 as indefinite.

Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 – Obviousness – Long/Grunert/Chabanne
Appellant argues claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 as a group. See App.
Br. 17-23. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Long discloses each of the features of claim 1
except the claimed scraper, lint remover, and rinser. Ans. 6. The Examiner
finds that Grunert teaches a mesh filter and a scraper that removes lint from
the mesh filter and that Chabanne teaches a rinser and lint remover, and
proposes modifying Long accordingly. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish how a
scraper could be used in Long to scrape lint from the inside of the lint
collector or provide reasons why one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to provide a scraper to scrape lint from the inside of the lint
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

7
collector. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 51. This argument is not persuasive
because the Examiner does not propose using a scraper on the lint collector
from Long. Instead, the Examiner proposes modifying Long to substitute
the scraper and lint filter of Grunert for the lint collector of Long. See Ans.
6-7.
Appellant additionally alleges that the Examiner fails to establish or
explain how the lint inside the vertically hanging lint collector of Long
would be rinsed by the rinsing of Chabanne. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 52.
This contention does not apprise us of Examiner error because, as noted
above, the Examiner’s proposed combination includes the scraper and lint
remover from Grunert, not the lint collector originally in Long.
Appellant further argues that Grunert does not disclose rinsing the
collected lint from the edge of the lint filter. App. Br. 27; Reply Br. 52, 53.
This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner does not rely on
Grunert for this finding. The Examiner explains that Chabanne teaches a
rinser for a lint remover and proposes further modifying Long based on
Chabanne. Ans. 6. Appellant explains that Chabanne simply considers the
special case of a washer-dryer and teaches having water rejected from a
spinning drum sprinkled on a lint filter to wash off lint, that the scraper of
the Grunert reference already scrapes the lint off of the filter element so it
falls into a storage device, and that the lint collector of Long captures lint
inside the bag. App. Br. 27; Reply Br. 52. Appellant argues that because
Grunert scrapes lint from the filter, one skilled in the art would have no
apparent reason to rinse the filter. Reply Br. 53. However, Appellant offers
no persuasive explanation as to why one skilled in the art would not have
further modified Long to additionally rinse lint off of the filter from Grunert
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

8
as proposed by the Examiner. For example, Appellant does not explain why
Grunert necessarily removes all lint such that rinsing would not provide
further benefit as the Examiner reasons.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s proposed
modifications would change the function of the devices disclosed in Grunert
and Chabanne. However, the Examiner does not modify either Grunert or
Chabanne and, instead, modifies Long based on the teachings of Grunert and
Chabanne.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13,
and 17 as being unpatentable over Long, Grunert, and Chabanne.

Claim 3 – Obviousness – Long/Grunert/Chabanne/Fumagalli
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and Appellant argues that Fumagalli
does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 28; Reply
Br. 55. As we are aware of no such deficiencies, this argument is
unpersuasive and we sustain the rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable
over Long, Grunert, Chabanne, and Fumagalli.

Claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 – Long/Grunert/Chabanne/Ikemizu
Claims 5-9 depend from claim 1, claims 14-16 depend from claim 11,
and claims 18-21 depend from claim 17. Appellant argues that Ikemizu does
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17. App. Br.
29; Reply Br. 56. As we are aware of no such deficiencies, this argument is
unpersuasive and we sustain the rejection of claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 as
being unpatentable over Long, Grunert, Chabanne, and Ikemizu.

Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

9
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 – Obviousness – Hong/Yoshimi
Appellant argues claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 as a group. See App.
Br. 29-31. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Hong discloses the features of claim 1 except
for the scraper. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that Yoshimi discloses the
claimed scraper and proposes modifying Hong accordingly. Id.
Appellant explains that Hong teaches a water inlet hose that injects
water toward the filter to remove lint from the filter and Yoshimi, in
contrast, is directed to a scraper that scrapes and moves dry dust toward an
outer side of a filter. App. Br. 31; Reply Br. 57. Appellant argues that
neither Hong nor Yoshimi teaches a scraper that collects lint at an edge of
the mesh filter outside the process air supply and a rinser that subsequently
washes the lint off the mesh filter with rinsing fluid. App. Br. 31; Reply Br.
58. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on
either reference individually teaching each of these features. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Instead, the Examiner
relies on the combination of Hong and Yoshimi. See Ans. 8-9.
Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 17 as being unpatentable over Hong
and Yoshimi.

Claim 3 – Obviousness – Hong/Yoshimi/Fumagalli
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and Appellant argues that Fumagalli
does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 31-32;
Reply Br. 59-60. As we are aware of no such deficiencies, this argument is
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

10
unpersuasive and we sustain the rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable
over Hong, Yoshimi, and Fumagalli.

Claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 – Hong/Yoshimi/Ikemizu
Claims 5-9 depend from claim 1, claims 14-16 depend from claim 11,
and claims 18-21 depend from claim 17. Appellant argues that Ikemizu does
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17. App. Br.
32; Reply Br. 60. As we are aware of no such deficiencies, this argument is
unpersuasive and we sustain the rejection of claims 5-9, 14-16, and 18-21 as
being unpatentable over Hong, Yoshimi, and Ikemizu.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, and
13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement and AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 11 and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-10, and
17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Long, Grunert,
and Chabanne.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Long, Grunert, Chabanne, and
Fumagalli.
Appeal 2011-012426
Application 12/313,865

11
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5-9, 14-16, and
18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Long, Grunert,
Chabanne, and Ikemizu.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong and
Yoshimi.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong, Yoshimi, and Fumagalli.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5-9, 14-16, and
18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong, Yoshimi,
and Ikemizu.
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

mls