Ex Parte Hasslberger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

12012728 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

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