10578851 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

Ex Parte Heinonen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2016

10578851 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

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. 10/578,851 05/10/2006 Antero Heinonen 11001.163 5045 46668 7590 07/25/2016 FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. 20916 MACK AVENUE, SUITE 2 GROSSE POINTE WOODS, MI 48236 EXAMINER MASHRUWALA, NIKHIL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3749 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANTERO HEINONEN ____________________ Appeal 2014-007082 Application 10/578,851 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 21–31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2014-007082 Application 10/578,851 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an arrangement in the ventilation of a kitchen appliance. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21 An arrangement in the ventilation of a kitchen appliance, which arrangement is arranged to be connected to a ventilation system including an exhaust-air duct, said arrangement comprising: a hood which is intended to be installed above the kitchen appliance, and said hood not including any of a sensor, a damper, a water bath, and a heat exchanger; said hood including an elongated exhaust-air connection for connecting said hood to the exhaust-air duct; a separator for separating grease from the exhaust air; a cell arranged after said hood limiting an area in which the vaporous grease condenses; said cell mounting said separator at an end connected to said exhaust-air duct and having a connection at another end connected to said elongated exhaust-air connection to lead exhaust-air away from the hood; said cell including an intake-air connection for introducing non-exhaust air into the cell to reduce the temperature of the exhaust air, for promoting the formation of droplets of vaporized grease, said cell including a temperature sensor for sensing temperature within said cell; said arrangement also including one of a heat exchanger, a fan motor, and a damper arranged in connection with said intake-air connection for regulating the velocity, quantity, and/or temperature of the intake air, and the heat exchanger, the motor, and the damper are connected to the temperature sensor for controlling them. Appeal 2014-007082 Application 10/578,851 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Hepner Molitor US 4,235,220 US 4,407,266 Nov. 25, 1980 Oct. 4, 1983 REJECTION Claims 21–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hepner and Molitor. OPINION Appellant correctly points out two flaws in the Examiner’s rejection. First, we are not apprised of any reasonable basis to regard Molitor’s mist eliminator E as relating to a grease separator according to independent claim 21. See Final Act. 3 (citing Molitor col. 4, ll. 15–17). Molitor indicates that grease is predominantly removed by water bath W and any remaining grease that condenses after passage through the water bath is washed away by nozzle 38, which is upstream of mist eliminator E. Col. 4, ll. 12–21. There is no indication that any grease would be remaining after nozzle 38 and, if so, how mist eliminator E would interact with it. App. Br. 14–15. Second, the claim requires grease condensation within the “cell” which is connected to the “exhaust-air duct” (emphasis added) at the separator. As the intake-air is introduced for forming grease droplets “into the cell,” the only location that introduction could possibly take place according to the claim must be upstream of the separator. Although Appellant does not employ the specific word “upstream” in claim 21 to describe the relationship of the intake air introduction with respect to the Appeal 2014-007082 Application 10/578,851 4 separator (Ans. 7), “upstream” accurately paraphrases the arrangement required by the express claim language. The Examiner does not propose any alternative claim construction. There does not appear to be any dispute that an arrangement introducing intake air upstream from the separator is not taught or fairly suggested by the Examiner’s proposed combination. App. Br. 13; Ans. 7. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. REVERSED