Ex Parte Kreutzfeldt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

13122862 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/122,862 04/06/2011
826 7590 07/24/2018
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Uta Kreutzfeldt
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
015202/402949 3185
EXAMINER
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UTA KREUTZFELDT, CLAUDIA HOFPETER,
KLAUS-MARTIN FORST, RICHARD SCHADT, and
KATERINA TZA VELLA
Appeal2017-010644
Application 13/122,862
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over at least the basic combination of Berends et al. (US
2008/0314423 Al, published Dec. 25, 2008) (hereinafter "Berends") in view
of Beer et al. (US 2007/0181154 Al, published Aug. 9, 2007) (hereinafter
"Beer"), optionally with Roth et al. (US 6,622,754 Bl, issued Sept. 23,
2003) (hereinafter "Roth") and Choi et al. (US 2007/0272272 Al, published
1 The real party in interest is stated to be "ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, N.V." (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2017-010644
Application 13/122,862
Nov. 29, 2007) (hereinafter "Choi"). We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention ( emphasis added to
highlight key disputed limitations):
1. A method for operating a dishwasher comprising a
washing tub for accommodating articles to be cleaned and a
circulation pump for circulating a cleaning liquid within the
washing tub, and wherein there is provided for a plurality of
washing programs selectable by the user, said washing
programs comprising a series of consecutive steps selected
from filling, pre-washing, washing, rinsing, soaking, draining
and drying steps, wherein at least one of the plurality of
washing programs comprises a first washing program that
includes operating the circulation pump at a nominal speed and
providing a first level of cleaning performance, wherein at least
one other of the plurality of washing programs comprises a
second washing program, the method comprising:
receiving a selection of the second washing program; and
performing the second washing program by:
operating the circulation pump at a speed which is
reduced with respect to the nominal speed; and
providing at least one soaking step during which the
circulation pump is inactive,
wherein:
the circulation pump, when active, is operated in a
pulsed mode, and
the second washing program provides a second level of
cleaning performance, the second level being the same or better
than the first level, while providing a reduced amount of noise
emitted from the circulation pump due to a reduced speed of
operation of the circulation pump as compared to an amount of
noise emitted from the circulation pump during operation of the
circulation pump for the first washing program.
2
Appeal2017-010644
Application 13/122,862
Appellants' arguments focus on claim 1, and Appellants rely upon
those arguments for all the claims ( e.g., see Appeal Br. 19). Thus, all the
claims stand or fall with claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the
Examiner's § 103 rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action mailed August 29, 2016, and the
Answer mailed June 16, 2017.
We add the following for emphasis.
While Appellants agree that Berends teaches a reduced speed
circulation pump cycle, they argue that Berends "is silent with respect [to]
using at least one dedicated soaking step" (Appeal Br. 10), further pointing
out that their Specification defines a soaking step in paragraph 9 (Reply Br.
5). 2 Assuming arguendo that Appellants are correct that Berends does not
explicitly teach a soaking step as defined in paragraph 9, a preponderance of
the evidence still supports the Examiner's determination of obviousness.
There is no dispute that Roth and Choi exemplify soaking steps in
dishwasher cycles. There is no persuasive merit in Appellants' contention
that "[a] skilled artisan would not combine the fixed operating speed of
2 Note that dependent claim 21 does not appear to further limit claim 1 if one
interprets claim 1 's soaking step as urged by Appellants to include first
wetting the dishes with cleaning fluid, and then turning off the circulation
pump for a predetermined period of time.
3
Appeal2017-010644
Application 13/122,862
Berends with Roth and/or Choi to arrive at the claimed invention" (Reply
Br. 6). One of ordinary skill would have appreciated and/or readily inferred
that the use/option of a soaking step is ubiquitous in dishwashing cycles.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ("[T]he analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."); see
also id., at 4 21 (" A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton."); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific
teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art
would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
Appellants' argument that Beer does not teach operating the
circulation pump in a pulse mode and/ or does not teach a pulse mode over
the entire time the circulation pump is on (Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 4) is not
persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection. Notably, Appellants'
Specification is devoid of any details as to how long it incorporates a
"pulsed mode, i.e. by continuously varying the speed of the pump," and
merely states that further noise reduction can be achieved by doing the
aforementioned "at least during part of the washing cycle" (Spec. 5, last full
paragraph). Furthermore, Beer states a pulsed behavior of the water jet may
be desirable (e.g., Beer ,r 12; see also Beer ,r,r 8, 13; Ans. 9, 10). In light of
these circumstances, the Examiner's determination that the claims
encompass the varying speeds of Beer's circulation pump is reasonable (e.g.,
Ans. 9, 10). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have readily
appreciated that continuously varying the speed of a pump or motor is a
4
Appeal2017-010644
Application 13/122,862
known way of minimizing noise and/or creating a soothing sound, such as in
the operation of cooling fans.
Appellants have not persuasively disputed the Examiner's
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than
ordinary creativity, would have used a soaking step (as exemplified in either
of Choi or Roth) as well as a circulation pump pulse mode ( as exemplified in
Beer) in the night time reduced circulation pump speed cycle of Berends.
Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above and in the Answer, and
taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ," KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, Appellants
have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness
determination.
We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections on appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5