Ex Parte Yang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2012

11002415 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)

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.
11/002,415 12/03/2004 Jae Suk Yang 9988.032.10 8441
30827 7590 05/23/2012
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAE SUK YANG, SANG DOO KIM, and SEONG HAE JEONG
____________________

Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 7 and 9-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 7, reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
7. A dryer comprising:
a drum rotatably mounted on the dryer, for loading
objects to be dried therein;
a heating means for heating air introduced into the drum;
an electrode sensor for detecting a change of voltages;
a control means for determining a dryness of objects
according to the change of voltages, and determining an
amount of electric energy to be supplied to the heating means
based on information including the dryness of objects;
wherein the heating means includes at least two heaters
configured to be simultaneously operable and controlled by the
control means, and wherein a first heater of the at least two
heaters generates the heat with a constant amount of electric
energy and a second heater generates the heat with variable
amounts of electric energy,
wherein the control means is configured to end a drying
operation based on information including the dryness of
objects; and
drive units for driving the heaters.

The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
I. Claims 7, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Tatsumi (US 5,172,490, iss.
Dec. 22, 1992), Wunderlin (US 6,845,290 B1, iss. Jan. 18, 2005) and
Yoshimoto (JP 03063014 A, pub. Mar. 19, 1991) or Nakamura (JP
64040014 A, pub. Feb. 10, 1989).
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
3
II. Claims 7, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Figs. 1, 2, 3A, and 3B of
Appellants’ admitted prior art, Wunderlin, and Yoshimoto or
Nakamura.
III. Claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Tatsumi or Appellants’
admitted prior art, Wunderlin, Yoshimoto or Nakamura, and Niwa (JP
0461804 A, pub. Feb. 27, 1992).

OPINION
In relevant part, sole independent claim 7 requires a dryer that has a
control means for determining a dryness of objects according to a change of
voltages. In Rejection I, the Examiner found that Tatsumi teaches a control
means 34 for determining a dryness of objects according to a change of
voltages; in Rejections I and II, the Examiner found Wunderlin teaches the
same using electrode sensor 52 and control means 58. Ans. 3-5.
Appellants’ briefs raise the issue of whether Tatsumi and Wunderlin
teach the control means for determining dryness based on a change of
voltage. See App. Br. 11-13. Appellants’ arguments focus on whether these
references teach electrodes for detecting a change of voltages, pointing out
that both Tatsumi and Wunderlin utilize digital values. See, e.g., App. Br.
11, 13 (presumably, the underlying principle in Appellants’ argument is that
the voltage values from a sensor are analog, not digital). We first turn to the
Specification to understand the claim limitation at issue.
Although the Specification does not set forth an algorithm the
microcontroller 200 (i.e., “control means”) undertakes to determine dryness
based on the change of voltages, the Specification does discuss some of the
microcontroller’s function. See App. Br. 7 (calling microcontroller 200 the
control means). For example, the Specification discusses a conversion unit
202 that converts the signal from electrode sensor 38 into a format readable
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
4
by the microcontroller 200. Spec. 12:21 to 13:1. While not set out in detail,
it is widely appreciated that microcontrollers are digital devices, and that
devices that convert analog signals, such as voltage measurements, into
digital signals are referred to as A/D (Analog-to-Digital) converters.1,2 The
Specification also states that “the microcomputer 200 determines the dryness
of the objects according to the change of the voltages detected by the
electrode sensor 38.” Spec. 21:14-16. The Specification does not go into
other relevant details or specify what “change of voltages” means or how the
control means acts on the raw or converted voltage data. Accordingly, the
Specification merely indicates that the control means (microcontroller 200)
reads voltage information from the electrode sensor 38 by way of an A/D
converter 202.
Tatsumi
The electrodes 32 in Tatsumi supply a voltage indicative of the
wetness of the clothes. Tatsumi, col. 5, ll. 26-35; fig. 9. A decreasing
voltage signal, over time, indicates that the clothes are drying. Tatsumi, col.
5, ll. 45-46; fig. 9. This voltage signal is input to control device 34, which

1 “analog-to-digital converter,” “A device that changes a continuously
variable quantity such as motion or electrical voltage into digital or discrete
values.” Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992)
(http://www.credoreference.com/entry/apdst/analog_to_digital_converter)
(last visited May 16, 2012).
2 “microcontroller,” “A microprocessor and associated components,
including ROM, used in a circuit for control of a device. Such a
microcontroller is dedicated, meaning that it cannot be easily converted for
any other function. For example, a microcontroller intended for a toaster
cannot be used in a washing machine even if the same microprocessor has
been used.” Collins Dictionary of Computing (2000)
(http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hcdcomp/microcontroller) (last
visited May 16, 2012).
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
5
uses neural circuitry to apply the voltage information to operate the dryer.
Tatsumi, col. 4, ll. 47-50; fig. 6; see also, e.g., col. 11, ll. 16-28 (“[t]he
degree of wetness … becomes low at a final stage … the resistance value of
the … electrodes 32 is increased, resulting in a drop of the detection
voltage”). The voltage signal is converted into a digital value for use in the
logic within control device 34. Id., col. 8, ll. 18-22 (“clothes wetness data
… represented as 4-bit signal).
In view of these teachings, the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3) that
Tatsumi teaches a control means for determining dryness based on a change
in voltage is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants’
argument that the voltage is converted into a digital representation (App. Br.
11) is not persuasive because the claim is not limited to analog-only devices
or otherwise preclusive of intermediate processing structures or steps.
Notably, as we discussed above, Appellants’ own Specification describes
intermediate processing structures used to convert analog voltage into a
digital form readable by the microprocessor. Spec. 12:21 to 13:1. Further,
Appellants’ Specification does not set forth the algorithm used by the control
means, such as to preclude Tatsumi’s particular algorithm or conversion of
data.
Likewise, Appellants’ argument that Tatsumi does not teach “changes
of voltages” (App. Br. 12) is not persuasive. As we found above, Tatsumi
explicitly describes electrodes 32 as functioning by sending voltage signals
to a control device 34, which in turn determines the dryness based on these
signals. To the extent Appellants’ are arguing that a change in voltage
means that the electrode generates a signal indicating a ∆V rather than a V,
we note that the Specification merely describes in general terms that dryness
is determined “according to the change of the voltages detected by the
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
6
electrode” and does not describe an algorithm using a ∆V or an electrode
that somehow generates a ∆V. The Specification continues, “the
microcomputer 200 comprehensively judges the value detected by the
electrode sensor 38 … so as to determine the dryness of laundry.” Spec.
21:21-24. In other words, the Specification indicates that “change of
voltages” means that the voltage changes as the clothes dry. In light of this,
the Examiner’s reading of “change of the voltages” on a device that
continuously measures voltages to determine dryness is reasonable.
Accordingly, in view of the above, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Tatsumi teaches a control means as required by
claim 7.
Wunderlin
Wunderlin teaches a controller 58 that uses an A/D converter 60 to
receive signals from moisture sensor 52. Wunderlin, col. 4, ll. 25-30. The
moisture sensor 52 operates by generating a voltage signal indicative of the
wetness of the clothes in the dryer. Id., col. 7, l. 35 et seq. The dryer is
operated (i.e., the clothes are dried) based on the signals from the moisture
sensor. Id.
In view of Wunderlin’s disclosure, the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3, 5)
that Wunderlin teaches a control means 58 and electrode sensor 52 for
determining the dryness of objects by detecting a change of voltages is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants discuss the Wunderlin reference but it is not clear to us
what gaps, if any, Appellants believe exist between the claimed control
means and the controller 58 / moisture sensor 52 structure of Wunderlin.
See App. Br. 13. As we discussed above, Wunderlin clearly uses a sensor
that generates a voltage indicative of the wetness of clothes, and the
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
7
controller utilizes this information to interpret how dry the clothes are and
whether additional drying must occur. See Wunderlin, col. 7, l. 35 et seq.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Wunderlin teaches a control means as required by claim 7.
Conclusion
Because we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s findings with
respect to the control means of claim 7 in view of Tatsumi and/or
Wunderlin, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
7 in either Rejection I or II. Appellants argue claims 9 and 10 with claim 7.
App. Br. 14, 15. Claim 9 and 10 therefore fall with claim 7. Appellants
separately argue dependent claims 11 and 12 of Rejection III, but rely on the
unpersuasive arguments addressed above. App. Br. 16. As such, we sustain
Rejection III.
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new
ground of rejection for claims 7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for being indefinite. In particular, claim 7 recites a “control
means for determining a dryness of objects … and determining an amount of
electric energy to be supplied,” but does not recite any particular structure
for the control means. Accordingly, we find the limitation to be directed to
means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, the
only “structure” Appellants point to in their Specification is microprocessor
200. App. Br. 7. The Specification is silent as to the algorithm(s) that give
the microprocessor (a generic device) the specific ability to become a
“control means” in the manner claimed. The written description must at
least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose
microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the
Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
8
claimed function. Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A set of boxes with labels (figs. 6, 9),
or a mere listing of computer hardware components (Spec. 21) does not
satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat,
521 F.3d 1333 (“[T]he corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a
computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the
specification.”) (citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249
(Fed. Cir. 2005). In particular, the disclosure describes the inputs to and the
outcome of performing the functions but not how the functions themselves
are performed. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334. The disclosure does not
suggest any particular algorithm (or the like) for using those inputs to
achieve the desired outcome.
Further, as the Federal Circuit noted in Aristocrat, one cannot rely on
the premise that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have the
capability to program the microprocessor of the dryer to perform the claimed
functions once the claimed functions are described to that person.
Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1335-37. Along those lines, whether one skilled in the
art could program the microprocessor of the dryer to perform the claimed
function(s) does not take the claim out of the realm of indefiniteness.
In light of the above, claim 7 is indefinite. Claims 9-12 depend from
claim 7 and therefore contain the same deficiency.

DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 7 and 9-12.
We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 7 and 9-12.

Appeal 2010-003244
Application 11/002,415
9
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner.…
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.…
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

mls