WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020005603 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021)

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.
15/388,177 12/22/2016 Ulf Nordh SUB-00205-US-CNT 1702
130333 7590 05/28/2021
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
MURANAMI, MASAHIKO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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):
PatentDocketing@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULF NORDH, HAKAN CARLSSON, OLLE NIKLASSON, and
FREDRIK HALLGREN
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 9–16, 19, and 20. See Final
Act. 1. Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 have been canceled. Id. at 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Whirlpool Corp. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a microwave heating apparatus with
rotatable antenna. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A microwave heating apparatus comprising:
a cavity arranged to receive a piece of food to be
browned;
a stationary browning plate having a thermally
conductive layer on an upper side for directly receiving the
piece of food to be browned, and a microwave absorbing layer
on a lower side, the browning plate arranged in a substantially
horizontal browning region configured outward of a center of
the browning plate;
a microwave source for generating microwaves below the
browning plate; and
a rotatable antenna arranged at a bottom of the cavity for
distributing the generated microwaves, the antenna comprising
a panel configured to distribute a first portion of the generated
microwaves to a first opening configured to produce a first
radiating lobe pointing towards the browning region such that
the intersection between the first radiating lobe and the
browning region forms a hot spot thereby forming a first ring-
shaped heating pattern in the browning region as a result of
rotation of the antenna, the panel configured to distribute a
second portion of the generated microwaves to a second
opening configured to produce a second radiating lobe pointing
towards the browning region such that the intersection between
the second radiating lobe and the browning region forms a hot
spot thereby forming a second ring-shaped heating pattern in
the browning region as a result of rotation of the antenna,
wherein the first and second openings are configured such that
the second ring-shaped heating pattern is closer to the center of
the browning plate than the first ring-shaped heating pattern.
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Teich US 4,335,290 June 15, 1982
Yoshimura US 4,568,811 Feb. 4, 1986
Igarashi US 4,673,783 June 16, 1987
Berg ’139 US 5,237,139 Aug. 17, 1993
Berg ’546 US 5,268,546 Dec. 7, 1993
Hayami US 2003/0121913 A1 July 3, 2003
Lee US 2005/0230385 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 9, 10, 12–16 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139
5, 19 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139, Teich
6, 20 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139, Teich, Yoshimura
11 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139, Berg ’546
OPINION
Claims 1–4, 9, 10, and 12–16: Rejected as
Unpatentable over Hayami and Berg ’139
Independent claim 1 recites a microwave heating apparatus
comprising, inter alia, a rotatable antenna comprising a panel configured to
distribute: (1) a “first portion” of “generated microwaves” to a first opening
to produce a “first radiating lobe pointing towards the browning region” of
the microwave, such that rotation of the antenna forms a “first ring-shaped
heating pattern in the browning region” from the first lobe; and (2) a “second
portion” of the generated microwaves to a second opening to produce a
“second radiating lobe pointing towards the browning region,” such that
rotation of the antenna forms a “second ring-shaped heating pattern” in the
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

4
browning region, the second ring-shaped heating pattern being closer to the
center of the browning plate than the first ring-shaped heating pattern.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 2. Independent claims 14 and 15 contain similar
limitations. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner finds that Hayami teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1, including a rotatable antenna comprising a panel with first and
second openings through which microwave radiation is emitted to form first
and second ring-shaped heating patterns in the browning region. Final Act.
7–9 (citing Hayami ¶ 161, Figs. 3, 8, 10, 28). The Examiner further finds,
however, that Hayami does not explicitly disclose first and second radiating
“lobe[s] point[ed] towards the browning region.” Id. at 9. The Examiner
therefore relies on Berg ’139 for this missing limitation. Id. The Examiner
finds that Berg ’139 teaches a first radiating lobe emitted from feed opening
16 of Berg ’139’s waveguide 2, and the “direct wave direction corresponds
to direction towards microwave heating element, of Hayami.” Id. (citing
Berg ’139, 8:23, Fig. 3). The Examiner similarly finds that Berg ’139
teaches a second radiating lobe emitted from feed opening 17 of waveguide
2, in a direction that also “corresponds to direction towards microwave
heating element, of Hayami.” Id. (citing Berg ‘139, 8:28, Fig. 3). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art:
to associate the microwave emissions from the rotating antenna,
of Hayami, with directed radiation waves, as taught by Berg,
for the purpose of refining the design of a rotating antenna,
because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to associate
the well-known behavior of radiation waves, corresponding to
lobes, to design structures in a microwave oven to produce a
desired microwave pattern for to accomplish heating.
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

5
Id. at 10 (citing Berg ’139, 8:19, Fig. 4).
Appellant responds that “one skilled in the art would not have
modified the microwave oven of Hayami et al. based on the teachings of
Berg ’139.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts, among other things, that “if
the rotating antenna at the bottom of the microwave oven of Hayami et al.
were modified to produce two lobes as in Berg ’139, that interference field
pattern in Fig. 4 of Berg ’139 would be rotated 90 degrees and would extend
up the sidewall of the microwave oven and would be perpendicular to
[Hayami’s] browning plate.” Id. at 15–16.
Appellant “also questions what the Examiner means by ‘a desired
microwave pattern to accomplish heating.’” Appeal Br. 16 (quoting Final
Act. 10). Appellant contends that while Hayami teaches creating microwave
patterns that optimize heating using a browning plate, “Berg ’139 does not
disclose the use of a browning plate and thus does not discloses any
desirable microwave patterns to accomplish heating using a browning plate.”
Id. Appellant also contends that “the Examiner has not provided any
evidence of why one skilled in the art [would] believe that the modification
of Hayami et al. based on Berg ’139 would achieve the ‘desired’ microwave
pattern.” Id.
In further elaboration of the rejection in the Answer, the Examiner
explains that: “[T]he cavity side wall 10 of Berg is considered as an
antenna, because microwave radiation lobes originate from cavity side wall
10 at multiple positions,” and “the radiation lobes of Berg, dark shading in
Fig. 4, are incorporated as being produced by the antenna 21 of Hayami at
multiple locations 211, 212A, and 212B of antenna 21, in a modification of
Hayami.” Ans. 28. The Examiner further contends that:
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

6
[W]hether directed microwaves are initially traveling sideways
as in Berg, or are initially traveling in an upward direction as in
Hayami, the microwave heating of a plate that supports food as
in Berg performs the same function as the heating of a
microwave heating element that supports food as in Hayami, in
that advantageous radiation lobes would be directed to intersect
and heat a plate/element supporting food.
Id. at 28–29. The Examiner asserts that “[t]he motivation to incorporate the
intensity maxima producing structures/features of Berg into the rotating
antenna of Hayami is . . . for the advantage of effectively heating a bottom
plate that supports food, which is analogous to heating the microwave
heating element that supports food in Hayami.” Id. at 29.
Appellant replies that recreating the “desired microwave pattern”
depicted in Figure 4 of Berg ’139 would require “add[ing] two ports on a
sidewall of the cavity and generate microwaves in the same way as in [Berg
’139],” which, according to Appellant, would not result in ring-shaped
heating patterns because Berg ’139’s antenna does not rotate. Reply Br. 2–
4.
We determine not to sustain this rejection. As an initial matter, it is
not entirely clear how the Examiner proposes combining Hayami and Berg
’139. In the Final Action, the Examiner states that one of ordinary skill in
the art would “associate” the microwave emissions from Hayami’s rotating
antenna with Berg ’139’s “directed radiation waves.” Final Act. 10. The
Examiner does not explain what is meant by associating Hayami’s waves
with Berg ’139’s waves, e.g., whether Berg ’139’s stationary coupling
antenna 9 and waveguide 2 (with feed openings 16 and 17)—which are
mounted to sidewall 10 of microwave cavity 1—are simply added to
Hayami’s configuration, or whether Hayami’s rotating antenna, with
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

7
openings 212A, 212B, and 213, is modified in some unspecified manner in
accordance with Berg ’139’s teachings. In the Answer, the Examiner asserts
that it would have been obvious to “incorporate the teachings of radiation
lobes of Berg into the emitted microwave field of Hayami.” Ans. 29.
Appellant took this to mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
added Berg ’139’s sidewall-mounted waveguide to Hayami’s device. See
Reply Br. 2. Assuming this is the correct interpretation of the Examiner’s
proposed combination, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
shown how such a combination would result in the claimed invention.
The Examiner relies on the “intensity maxima” depicted in Figure 4 as
corresponding to the claimed “lobes” pointed toward the browning region.
These intensity maxima result from the interaction between direct waves
emanating from openings 16 and 17, and the wave from opening 17 after
reflection from side wall 10’. Berg ’139, 8:19–40. That is, it is an
“interference field pattern” resulting from these three waves. Id. at 8:20–28.
The interaction of this interference field pattern with the pattern created by
Hayami’s device would almost certainly change both patterns, but the
Examiner has not explained what the resulting pattern would look like, and
in particular has not established that the claimed ring-shaped heating pattern
would be produced. For this reason, we are not persuaded that the
combination of Hayami and Berg ’139 teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of independent claims 1, 14, and 15, and therefore do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 14, 15, and their dependent claims 2–4,
9, 10, 12, 13, and 16, as unpatentable over Hayami and Berg ’139.
Appeal 2020-005603
Application 15/388,177

8
Remaining Rejections
The Examiner’s reliance on Teich, Yoshimura, and Berg ’546 does
not remedy the deficiency of the combination of Hayami and Berg ’139
discussed above. See Final Act. 20–24. Therefore, for the reasons discussed
above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
5 and 19 as unpatentable over Hayami, Berg ’139, and Teich; of claims 6
and 20 as unpatentable over Hayami, Berg ’139, Teich, and Yoshimura; and
of claim 11 as unpatentable over Hayami, Berg ’139, and Berg ’546.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 9, 10,
12–16
103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139 1–4, 9, 10,
12–16
5, 19 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139,
Teich
5, 19
6, 20 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139,
Teich, Yoshimura
6, 20
11 103(a) Hayami, Berg ’139,
Berg ’546
11
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9–16
19, 20

REVERSED