Ex Parte Heisele et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

12593641 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
12/593,641 09/29/2009 Bernd Heisele 2007P00706WOUS 7096
46726 7590 05/31/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
LEE, KEVIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 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 BERND HEISELE, ANTON OBLINGER, and
KARLHEINZ REHM
Appeal 2016-004450
Application 12/593,6411
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
23—34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify BSH Hausgerate GmbH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed September 29, 2009
(“Spec.”); the Final Action electronically delivered May 21, 2015 (“Final
Act.”); the Advisory Action electronically delivered July 15, 2015 (“Adv.
Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed August 28, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer electronically delivered February 12, 2016 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief filed March 30, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-004450
Application 12/593,641
The claims are directed to a top spray device for dishwashers. Claim
23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A dishwasher, comprising:
a spray device to distribute washing solution in the
dishwasher; and
a hydraulic line having an opening through which the
washing solution passes to the spray device; wherein
the spray device includes:
a spray head having an upper side, the upper side of the
spray head arranged below the opening of the hydraulic line so
as to form a gap between the upper side of the spray head and
the opening of the hydraulic line; and
a retaining element connected to the hydraulic line and
retaining the spray head.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Pratt US 6,715,404 B2 Apr. 6, 2004
Jeong et al. US 7,493,905 B2 Feb. 24, 2009
(“Jeong”)
Perkins et al. US 7,562,833 B2 July 21, 2009
(“Perkins”)
Honegger EP 1 382 287 A2
REJECTIONS
Jan. 21, 2004
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(1) claims 23—25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 over Honegger in view of
Perkins; (2) claim 26 over Honegger and Perkins in view of Jeong; and
2
Appeal 2016-004450
Application 12/593,641
(3) claims 29 and 32 over Honegger and Perkins in view of Pratt. Final Act.
2 and 4.
OPINION
Appellants argue the pending claims as a group. We select claim 23
as representative of the group; the remaining claims stand or fall with claim
23. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—that Honegger
discloses all of the limitations of claim 23, except the upper side of the spray
head arranged below the opening of the hydraulic line so as to form a gap
between the upper side of the spray head and the opening of the hydraulic
line. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Perkins discloses providing a
spray head with the upper side arranged below the opening of a hydraulic
line so as to form a gap. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it
obvious to modify Honegger in view of Perkins in order to optimize spray
head spacing to obtain a desirable spray pattern and effectively distribute
water to the area below. Id.
Appellants argue that Honegger arranges the upper side of the spray
head above the opening formed by the neck of the hydraulic line so as to
engage the spray head with the neck, with the purpose of preventing
movement of the spray head perpendicular to the rotational axis. Appeal Br.
5. Appellants then argue the purpose of preventing movement of the spray
head perpendicular to the rotational axis in Honegger is so that the holding
arm periodically at least partially covers the spray orifice of the spray head
during its rotation, interrupting the water jet and resulting in a pulsed water
3
Appeal 2016-004450
Application 12/593,641
outlet. Id. at 5—6. According to Appellants, “if the spray head [] were not
held in such a manner, the water jet interruption design would be defeated"
Id. at 6 (emphasis in original).
Appellants contend that Perkins teaches sprinkler heads that nutate, or
wobble, and that it is critical that the water distribute plate of Perkins
reliably and consistently remain in a tilted orientation while rotating to
achieve the desired nutating action. Id. Appellants argue that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not use the nutating design of Perkins in
Honegger’s system, since the nutating design would not allow for water jet
interruption which is the purpose of Honegger’s design. Id.
The Examiner responds that Perkins discloses a gap between the
hydraulic line and the spray head wherein “a solid stream of water that
passes through the spindle [] to atmosphere, and toward a [water]
distribution plate” (akin to the spray head of Honegger). Ans. 3 (citing
Perkins col. 3,11. 41^42). “[T]he combination of Honegger in view of
Perkins simply requires adding a gap between the opening of the hydraulic
line and the upper side of the spray head of Honegger, irrespective of the
nutating feature of Perkins.” Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that the
simple modification of adding a gap would have no impact on interruption
of the jet spray, as the spray head openings would still rotate past the
stationary holding arms. Id. at 6.
“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not
simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appellants’
argument against combining the teachings of Honegger with the gap
disclosed by Perkins is not persuasive. Appellants have not shown that
4
Appeal 2016-004450
Application 12/593,641
Honegger’s water jet interruption design would be defeated by
implementation of a gap between the hydraulic line and the spray head.
Moreover, predictable tradeoffs support obviousness. In re Urbanski, 809
F.3d. 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if Appellants were correct that the water
jet interruption design would be defeated, a combination of references may
be obvious even if the combination eliminates a benefit of one of the
references. See id. at 1243. Sacrificing one benefit to gain another in a
predictable manner does not negate a reason to combine. We are not
persuaded that the disclosure of Perkins indicates that Honegger would be
rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose by the proposed
combination.
The Examiner did not err in determining claim 23 to be obvious over
Honegger in view of Perkins. Because the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 23, they are argued as a group, claims 24—34 are likewise
obvious.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23—34 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
5