Ex Parte Hasslberger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201712012728 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/012,728 02/04/2008 Robert Hasslberger 2007P00275US 4119 46726 7590 03/10/2017 RS»H Home. Armlianoes; Pomoratinn EXAMINER 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2017 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): MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT HAS SLBERGER, DAN NEUMAYER, JOERG ROSENBAUER, and MARKUS THEINE Appeal 2014-00651U Application 12/012,7281 2 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, 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 final rejection of claims 8—31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 4, 2008), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb. 14, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 16, 2014), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Apr. 10, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2014-006511 Application 12/012,728 According to Appellants, “[t]he invention relates to a panel for a ventilation system of an oven.” Spec. 1,1. 5. Claims 8 and 9 are the only independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 8, below, as illustrative of the claims on appeal. 8. A ventilation panel for a ventilation system of an oven having a main air inlet aperture defining an air entry area for the entry of fresh air from outside the oven into the ventilation system, the ventilation panel comprising: a first subsidiary air inlet aperture formed in the ventilation panel, the first subsidiary air inlet aperture being adapted to allow a first portion of the fresh air to enter a first subsidiary ventilation duct through the first subsidiary air inlet aperture; a second subsidiary air inlet aperture formed in the ventilation panel, the second subsidiary air inlet aperture being adapted to allow a second portion of the fresh air to enter a second subsidiary ventilation duct through the second subsidiary air inlet aperture; and a dividing wall for at least partially separating the first subsidiary air inlet aperture and the second subsidiary air inlet aperture from each other in the air entry area, wherein the ventilation panel is configured to limit air that enters the second subsidiary ventilation duct to only air that comes from the main air inlet aperture and air that comes from an air duct that runs through a door of the oven. Id. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 8—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blight (GB 2 256 921 A, pub. Dec. 23, 1992), Mizuno (US 3,779,228, iss. Dec. 18, 1973), and Mills (US 2,539,150, iss. Jan. 23, 1951). 2 Appeal 2014-006511 Application 12/012,728 ANALYSIS Based on our review of the record, including the Answer and Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection appears to be based on hindsight. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 12. Thus, for the reasons discussed in detail below, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 9, or dependent claims 10—31. Independent claim 8 recites “the ventilation panel is configured to limit air that enters the second subsidiary ventilation duct to only air that comes from the main air inlet aperture and air that comes from an air duct that runs through a door of the oven,” thereby excluding air that comes from the interior of the oven from flowing through the second subsidiary ventilation duct. Appeal Br., Claims App. Among other modifications, the Examiner proposes to modify the oven in Blight’s Figure 1 to omit aperture 15, which allows hot air from cavity 1 to flow into what we will term, in the parlance of the claim, a second subsidiary ventilation duct, based on a teaching from Mizuno. See, e.g., Answer 3—5. The Examiner determines that the above-discussed modification would have been obvious because such a modification would allow said second subsidiary ventilation duct to remain cooler since oven gases would be prevented from entering said second subsidiary ventilation duct and only ambient air or air that runs through the oven door will enter said second subsidiary ventilation duct and such a modification would also allow a greater throughput of air through said door ventilation duct and said main air inlet since said second subsidiary ventilation duct would no longer be burdened by the gases exiting the oven cavity, thus helping to keep both the oven door and oven controls cooler and safer for the end user. 3 Appeal 2014-006511 Application 12/012,728 Answer 6. Based on our review, however, this reason does not sufficiently support the proposed modification. In particular, the statement “such a modification would allow said second subsidiary ventilation duct to remain cooler since oven gases would be prevented from entering said second subsidiary ventilation duct and only ambient air or air that runs through the oven door will enter said second subsidiary ventilation duct” is simply a description of what will happen after the proposed modification—i.e., “ambient air” and “air that runs through the oven door” will flow, but “oven gases” will not flow, into the “second subsidiary ventilation duct,” so the duct will remain cooler. But the statement does not explain adequately why it is desirable to flow only “ambient air” and “air that runs through the oven door” and not “oven gases” into the duct, or why it is desirable that the duct remain cooler. The statement “such a modification would also allow a greater throughput of air through said door ventilation duct and said main air inlet since said second subsidiary ventilation duct would no longer be burdened by the gases exiting the oven cavity” is without an adequate evidentiary or explanatory basis, and, thus, we cannot determine sufficiently whether this statement is correct. It may be, for example, that even when the “second subsidiary ventilation duct” of Blight’s Figure 1 receives air from cavity 1, more “air [will flow] through said door ventilation duct and said main air inlet,” due to convection caused by the high temperature of air from cavity 1. Regardless, the Examiner does not explain adequately why it is desirable to “allow a greater throughput of air” through the ducts. The Examiner’s statement that the above-discussed modifications would have been obvious because they “help[ ] to keep both the oven door 4 Appeal 2014-006511 Application 12/012,728 and oven controls cooler and safer for the end user” is similarly without adequate evidentiary or explanatory support. For example, there is no indication that the oven controls or door are at an unsafe temperature, or that the temperature of either the controls or the door would be affected at all by the proposed modification. As stated above, it is unclear whether the proposed modification would change the amount of air flowing through the “door ventilation duct.” Further, as shown in Blights’ Figure 1, it is not hot air that flows through the “door ventilation duct,” but, rather, “ambient air.” See Blight, Fig. 1. Still further, as also shown in Blight’s Figure 1, the controls are spaced above and apart from the “main air inlet,” and the Examiner has not shown that the air flowing through the ducts has any influence on the temperature at the controls. For the above reasons, we determine that the Examiner does not provide an adequate basis for combining the references to teach the claimed invention, and, therefore, we determine that the basis for combining the references appears to be solely impermissible hindsight. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, or the rejection of claims 29 and 30 that depend from claim 8. Inasmuch as independent claim 9 recites a similar limitation, and the Examiner’s basis for the rejection is substantially the same as that discussed above for claim 8, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 or its dependent claims 10-28 and 31. 5 Appeal 2014-006511 Application 12/012,728 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8—31. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation