Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

14042778 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
14/042,778 10/01/2013 Shiyong LIU 075559.00005 5836
26712 7590
HODGSON RUSS LLP
THE GUARANTY BUILDING
140 PEARL STREET
SUITE 100
BUFFALO, NY 14202-4040
EXAMINER
VAN, QUANG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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):
ipdocketing @ hodgsonrus s. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIYONG LIU, ZHIFEI HUANG, and GUANGMO JU1
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9-12, 19-21, and 24 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jeong (US 2008/0264933 Al, pub. Oct. 30, 2008) and
Hwang (US 2008/0149630 Al, pub. June 26, 2008), and claim 2 over Jeong,
Hwang, and Kim ’419 (US 6,239,419, iss. May 29, 2001), and claims 7 and
8 over Jeong, Hwang, and Kim ’888 (us 2005/0011888 Al, pub. Jan. 20,
2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The inventors identify GUANGDONG MIDEA KITCHEN APPLIANCES
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. and MIDEA GROUP CO., LTD. as the
real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a ventilation system for an over-the-
range microwave oven. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An over-the-range microwave oven, comprising:
an outer casing defining a cooking cavity and an exhaust
passage therein, the exhaust passage defining an inlet formed in
a base plate of the outer casing and an outlet; and
a baffle plate disposed below the base plate and facing the
base plate so as to fully cover the inlet during a ventilation
operation of the microwave oven, wherein the baffle plate and
the base plate are spaced apart from each other to form a smoke
collection cavity between the baffle plate and the base plate;
wherein the baffle plate is detachably mounted to the base
plate via at least one connecting member located proximate an
edge of the baffle plate;
wherein the baffle plate is impermeable to air such that,
during the ventilation operation, air to be ventilated through the
inlet enters the smoke collection cavity between an outer edge
of the baffle plate and the base plate.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 5, 6, 9—12, 19—21, and 24
over Jeong and Hwang
Claims 1 and 19
Claims 1 and 19 are independent claims that Appellants argue
together. Appeal Br. 5—13. We select claim 1 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
The Examiner finds that Jeong discloses all of the elements of claim 1
except for the limitations directed to the width of the base plate and
detachability of the baffle plate. Final Action 2—3. The Examiner relies on
Hwang as disclosing a detachable baffle plate with the claimed width. Id.
2
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Jeong with a
wider and detachable baffle plate. Id. at 3. According to the Examiner, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to provide a covering
of the base plate. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing against the
combinability of Jeong and Hwang. Appeal Br. 5—13. In particular,
Appellants argue that “no reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art
would fully cover Jeong’s inlets.” Id. at 7. Appellants argue that Jeong’s
retractable hood plate 51 does not fully cover lower case 40 and,
furthermore, teaches that its inlets 41 should not be covered. Id. at 7—8.
Jeong’s hood plate 51 is therefore sized such that, even in the
unretracted state of Fig. 5 A, a rear portion of the inlets 41 are
never completely covered. This is because completely covering
the inlets 41 would prohibit the inlets 41 from suctioning air
during a ventilation operation. Thus, not only does Joeng [sic]
fail to teach or suggest the Examiner's proposed modification —
Jeong explicitly states that the proposed modification should
not be made.
Id. at 8.
Appellants also distinguish the Hwang reference. Id. at 8—9.
Appellants argue that Hwang is not directed to a microwave with an exhaust
ventilation feature for filtering or removing cooking fumes from another
cooking appliance (e.g., a stove top). Id. at 8. Appellants emphasize,
instead, that Hwang’s protective exhaust plate 612 covers the exhaust 611
located in base 610. Id. Appellants argue that Hwang’s inlet 162 is not
covered by any structure. Id. at 9.
Appellants also criticize the Examiner’s reasoning for making the
proposed combination. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
The Examiner’s rationale is circular. The Examiner argues that
it would have been obvious to modify Jeong to have a baffle
plate that fully covers the base plate “to provide covering of the
base plate” and thereby the inlets . . . This rationale merely
states the consequence of the Examiner’s own modification —
i.e., enlarging Jeong’s baffle plate to fully cover the base plate
would fully cover the base plate ... the Examiner's rationale of
modifying a plate such that it fully covers a base plate to
“provide covering of the base plate” is a conclusory statement
that is insufficient to support a legal conclusion of obviousness.
Id. at 10.
In response, the Examiner states that Jeong discloses substantially all
features of the claimed invention except for detachability and the width of
the baffle plate. Ans. 6—7. The Examiner states that Hwang discloses a
detachable baffle plate (element 612) that is wide enough to cover the entire
width of the base plate (element 610). Id. at 7. The Examiner reiterates that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to achieve the claimed invention. Id. The Examiner
points out that Hwang is only cited for Jeong’s missing limitation of a wide,
detachable baffle plate and that, otherwise, the claimed invention is
disclosed by Jeong. Id. In response to Appellants’ argument that Jeong does
not fully cover its inlets, the Examiner states that the proposed modification
would allow air to move freely in and out of Jeong’s modified cover plate,
just as with Hwang’s covered plate. Id.
In response to Appellants’ argument that Hwang is directed to exhaust
air flow instead of inlet air flow, the Examiner reiterates that Hwang is only
cited to provide a suitable substitute for Jeong’s missing limitation of a wide
cover plate. Id. The Examiner explains that movement of air is a simple
function of running a fan in either a forward or reverse direction. Id. at 8.
4
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
In reply, Appellants repeat the arguments from their Appeal Brief that
Jeong’s inlets should not be fully covered. Reply Br. 2. Appellants repeat
their earlier argument that the Examiner has not provided a valid reason for
combining the references. Id. Appellants repeat their argument that the
Examiner’s reason for combining the references is circular. Id. at 3.
Jeong discloses a microwave oven that is designed for installation
over another cooking appliance such as countertop range. Jeong | 5. Jeong
provides a hood plate to guide fumes, exhaust gas, etc. to an inlet arranged at
the bottom of the microwave oven. Id. 114. One function of the hood plate
is to prevent oil and dirt from attaching to the lower case of the body of the
microwave oven. Id. ^ 15. Unlike Appellants’ invention, which features a
fixed baffle plate, Jeong’s hood plate 51 is designed to slide back and forth.
See id. at Figs. 1, 2, 5A, 5B. Persons familiar with kitchen cooking
appliances will recognize that countertop ranges are typically deeper than
over-the-range microwave ovens and that Jeong’s sliding feature facilitates
re-direction of fumes arising from the front burners of a cooktop range.
Appellants’ case hinges primarily on what it means for ventilation
inlets to be “fully covered.” During examination of a patent application,
pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
5
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
An examination of Appellants’ Specification and drawings informs us
that “fully covered” does not entail sealing off the ventilation inlets from air
flow. In Appellants’ invention, the baffle plate 2 is spaced apart vertically
from the base plate 11 by means of connecting columns 5. See Figs. 1, 2,
Spec. 9,11. 10-15.
[W]hen the inlet filter screen 3 is mounted at the inlet 121 in the
base plate 11, the baffle plate 2 shields the inlet filter screen 3.
Thus, the filter screen 3 cannot be seen from outside, thus
improving the aesthetics of the appearance of the over-the-
range microwave oven 100. Those having ordinary skill in the
art will appreciate that, when a plurality of inlet filter screens 3
are disposed on the base plate 11, the baffle plate 2 shields all
the inlet filter screens 3.
Spec. 8. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
“fully” covering the inlet relates to shielding the inlet from view, which is
distinguishable from blocking or restricting air flow to the inlet.
The foregoing discussion places Appellants’ argument concerning
Jeong’s hood plate 51 in the proper perspective. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would readily understand that Jeong’s admonition to avoid
blocking the inlets relates to the flow of air.
As shown in FIG. 5A, the wall-mounted microwave oven
having the above-described configuration according to the first
embodiment of the present invention is normally maintained in
a state in which the hood plate 51 partially closes the inlets 41
of the lower case 40. Since the user may perform a cooking
operation in a state in which the hood plate 51 is not forwardly
moved, the wall-mounted microwave oven is designed such that
the inlets 41 of the lower case 40 are prevented from being
completely closed by the hood plate 51. It is also preferred that
the position of the hood plate 51 in a state, in which the hood
plate 51 is retracted, correspond to a position where a major
portion of exhaust gas emitted from another cooking appliance
arranged beneath the hood plate 51 reaches.
6
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
Jeong 179. Read in the proper context, Jeong is understood as teaching that
the inlets 41 should not be closed off from ventilation air flow. Thus,
Jeong’s teaching would not foreclose a modification whereby the inlets are
shielded from view, but nevertheless have access to ventilation air flow.
Hwang provides a simplified configuration with spaced baffle plate 612 that
permits ventilation air flow without the need to slide a plate as in Jeong.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Hwang is directed
to exhaust air flow rather than inlet air flow. Hwang teaches a baffle plate
disposed on the bottom of a microwave oven that redirects air flow. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a baffle plate can re­
direct either incoming or outgoing air. Moreover, it is well settled that it is
not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in
Appellants’ Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016 (CCPA 1972). This follows from the proposition that “[a] reference
may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary
purpose.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), citing KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007). As the Examiner
correctly explains, changing from inlet to outlet air flow is simply a matter
of reversing the direction of a ventilation fan. Ans. 8.
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner has engaged in circular reasoning in combining the references. A
motivation to combine can be found in “any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent.”
KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 420. “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
7
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Appellants’ invention is
directed at improving the aesthetic appearance of the underside of a range
top microwave.
[T]he inlet is shielded by the baffle plate and cannot be seen by
the users, thus improving the aesthetics of the appearance of the
over—the—range microwave oven. Furthermore, as the baffle
plate is disposed below the base plate, the dirt such as the oil
waste in the dirt-containing air does not tend to adhere onto the
base plate easily, thus reducing the dirt accumulated on the base
plate.
Spec. 2,11. 6—10. Jeong recognized and addressed this need prior to
Appellants’ date of invention. Jeong 115 (“to prevent oil and dirt, etc. from
being attached to the lower case of the body”). We interpret the Examiner’s
reason for making the proposed combination, i.e., to provide a covering for
the base, as encompassing the known benefits attributable to such covering.
Ans. 7. This includes the ability to clean and to prevent oil and dirt from
attaching to the underside of the microwave. Jeong || 14, 15. Thus, the
Examiner has articulated a sufficient non-hindsight reason to make the
proposed combination. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (hindsight argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a
sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 1
and 19.
8
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
Claims 5, 6, 9—12, 20, 21, and 24
Appellants argue each of these dependent claims under a separate sub­
heading. Appeal Br. 13—16. Appellants raise essentially the same argument
with respect to each claim. Id. Under the circumstances, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of these claims as a group.2
With respect to each rejected claim, Appellants make essentially the
following argument:
The Examiner rejected claim [X] as being obvious over Jeong
in view of Hwang. See id. In the rejection, the Examiner
provides reasoning for rejecting claim 1. Id. However, the
Examiner’s rejection is devoid of any explanation or findings
regarding claim [X], which recites elements not found in
claim 1. Thus, the Examiner failed to meet his burden of
making out a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
dependent claim [X],
Appeal Br. 14—16.
In response, the Examiner points out where the respective dependent
claim limitations are found in the cited references. Ans. 8—9. Appellants’
arguments do not address these findings of the Examiner and therefore do
not apprise us of error in those findings. See Reply Br. 13—16. Jeong is
cited for many of the features. Ans. 8—9. We also interpret the Examiner’s
rejection such that the Examiner’s reason for combining the references to
achieve the inventions of the dependent limitations to be the same reason as
the Examiner expressed with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 19,
which we previously found to be sufficient with respect to those claims and
which we find to also be sufficient for the claims depending therefrom.
2 Appellants provide an essentially verbatim, separate sub-heading and
argument for a “claim 23.” Appeal Br. 15—16. However, there is no
claim 23 pending as of the date of the Final Action. See Final Action 1.
9
Appeal 2016-000795
Application 14/042,778
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejections of
claims 5, 6, 9-12, 20, 21, and 24.
Unpatentability of Claims 2, 7, and 8 over
Combinations Based on Jeong and Hwang
Claims 2,7, and 8 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Claims App. The Examiner rejects these claims over Jeong and Hwang in
combination with Kim ’419 (claim 2) or Kim ’888 (claims 7 & 8).
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of these claims apart
from arguments presented with respect to claim 1, which we have previously
considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims).
Appellants argue that the Kim references do not cure the deficiencies in
Jeong and Hwang. Appeal Br. 16—17. However, we disagree that Jeong and
Hwang are deficient. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7,
and 8.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5—12, 19—21,
and 24 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10