Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2013

11536862 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/536,862 09/29/2006 Soo Bong KIM K-0878 9625
34610 7590 08/16/2013
KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. Box 8638
Reston, VA 20195
EXAMINER
RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2013 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 SOO BONG KIM
____________

Appeal 2012-005331
Application 11/536,862
Technology Center
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005331
Application 11/536,862

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
1. A drum type washing machine, comprising:
a tub having a fastening part formed on a rear wall
thereof;
a stator fastened to the fastening part of the tub, the stator
having a core part having teeth formed thereon, a coil wound
around the teeth, a first insulator that covers a front surface of
the core part, and a second insulator that covers a rear surface
of the core part;
a rotor that surrounds the stator;
at least one stator rib formed on a front surface of the
fIrst insulator; and
a supporting part that projects from the rear wall of the
tub and supports the at least one stator rib in an up-and-down
direction when the stator is fastened to the fastening part of the
tub, wherein the at least one stator rib comprises at least one
partition rib that separates a portion where the stator is fastened
to the fastening part from a portion where the coil is wound,
and wherein the supporting part comprises at least one
supporting rib that supports an inner wall of the at least one
partition rib when the stator is fastened to the fastening part of
the tub.
Appeal 2012-005331
Application 11/536,862

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kim et al. US 2004/0163428 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Koch et al. US 2005/0028568 A1 Feb. 10, 2005

THE REJECTIONS

1. Claims 1, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kim in view of paragraphs [0012]-[0013] of Appellant’s Specification.

2. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and
paragraphs [0012]-[0013] of Appellant’s Specification, in view of Koch.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining that the applied art suggests the
claimed invention, and in particular, whether Kim teaches the aspect of
claim 1 pertaining to “a supporting part that projects from the rear wall of
the tub and supports the at least one stator rib in an up-and-down direction”
wherein the supporting part comprises “at least one supporting rib that
supports an inner wall of the at least one partition rib”?
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE.
ANALYSIS

Appellant’s Figure 5 includes a depiction of the aspect of claim 1 at
issue, shown below.

Appeal 2012-005331
Application 11/536,862

4

As shown above, supporting part 800 projects from the rear wall of
tub 200 (tub 200 is not shown above) and supports stator rib 650 (which
includes partition rib 651). Supporting part 800 includes supporting rib 801
that supports the inner wall of partition rib 651.
It is the Examiner’s position that Kim’s Figure 5 teaches the same
subject matter. The Examiner reproduced a portion of Kim’s Figure 5 on
page 10 of the Answer, which we replicate below:

Appeal 2012-005331
Application 11/536,862

5
It is the Examiner’s position that there is a part of Kim’s tub 2 that
protrudes therefrom which the Examiner considers to be the “supporting part
that projects from the rear wall of the tub” as claimed. The Examiner has
bolded this particular part in black in the above depiction for emphasis. It is
the Examiner’s position that this part can be considered a supporting rib that
supports an inner wall of a partition rib (the partition rib is part of the object
bolded in grey in the depiction above).
Appellant argues that the part of Kim’s tub (bolded in black in the
depiction) cannot be fairly considered “a supporting part that projects from
the rear wall of the tub”. Br. 6. Reply Br. 3. Furthermore, Appellant argues
that this same part cannot be fairly considered to comprise a supporting rib
that supports an inner wall of a partition rib. Br. 6. Reply Br. 3. We agree.
The Examiner has not adequately explained how the part bolded in black is a
part that projects from the rear wall of the tub 2 of Kim. Also, the Examiner
has not adequately explained how this same part comprises a supporting rib
that supports an inner wall of a partition rib.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. Because the other
applied reference (Koch), and the admitted prior art, do not cure the
deficiencies of Kim, we also reverse Rejection 2.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.

REVERSED

bar