AMOTECH CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 20202019004842 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/076,981 03/22/2016 Duck Hyun SONG JLE0146USD 1167 23413 7590 08/03/2020 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER CORMIER, DAVID G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2020 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DUCK HYUN SONG ____________ Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before LILAN REN, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–5 and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AMOTECH CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 2 The invention relates to an apparatus for and method of driving a washing machine comprising a control unit configured to perform specific functions. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 15. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for driving a washing machine, the apparatus comprising: a double stator fixed to a lower surface of an outer tub, a first coil and a second coil being provided on an inner side and an outer side of the double stator, respectively; an inner rotor disposed with a gap on an inner circumferential surface of the first coil of the double stator and connected with a washing tub; an outer rotor disposed with a gap on an outer circumferential surface of the second coil of the double stator and connected with a pulsator disposed inside the washing tub, wherein the outer rotor is disposed further away from a rotation axis of the washing tub and the pulsator than the inner rotor; and a control unit configured to apply a first drive signal to the first coil and a second drive signal to the second coil separately from the first drive signal, wherein the control unit is configured to drive the inner rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction to thus rotate the washing tub and the pulsator in the first direction, and, thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second direction opposite to the first direction to thus rotate the pulsator in the second direction opposite to that of the washing tub, thereby being able to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator. Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 3 Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Imai (US 6,257,027 B1, issued July 10, 2001), Kim ’584 (US 2011/0179584 A1, published July 28, 2011), and Kim ’022 (US 2006/0042022 A1, published March 2, 2006). Appeal Br. 5; Final Act. 4. Appellant presents arguments only for independent claim 1. See generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection based on Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1. OPINION After review of the respective positions that Appellant presents in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner presents in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 recites a control unit configured to drive the outer rotor in a second direction opposite to the first direction to thus rotate the pulsator in the second direction opposite to that of the washing tub, thereby being able to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator. CLAIM INTERPRETATION As a preliminary matter, our review of the Examiner's analysis requires that the claims must first be construed to define the scope and meaning of the subject matter before us on appeal. See Gechter v. Davidson, Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 4 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During prosecution before the Examiner, the claim language should be given its broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions or enlightenment contained in the written description of Appellant's Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 recites that “the control unit is configured to” “to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator.” According to Appellant, this language is a limitation describing a manipulative step performed by the claimed controller. Appeal Br. 7. On the other hand, the Examiner asserts that the disputed language does not recite an active manipulative step, but merely describes an outcome or result of performing a previous step. Ans. 6. However, we note that the disputed language is preceded by the language “thereby being able” and, thus, reads in its entirety as “thereby being able to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator.” After weighing the positions Appellant and the Examiner present, we determine that the disputed language, when considered in connection with the language that precedes it, does not require the claimed control unit to be configured “to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator.”2 At best, the disputed language recites a conditional or optional limitation when read in connection 2 If prosecution is further continued, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the disputed language complies with the requirement for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 5 with the phrase “thereby being able” preceding it. Thus, we interpret the control unit of claim 1 as follows: the control unit is configured to drive the inner rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction to thus rotate the washing tub and the pulsator in the first direction, and, thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second direction opposite to the first direction to thus rotate the pulsator in the second direction opposite to that of the washing tub. REJECTION Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Imai teaches an apparatus for driving a washing machine comprising a control unit configured to apply a first drive signal to the first coil and a second drive signal to the second coil separately from the first drive signal. Final Act. 4; see generally Appeal Br. Further, both Appellant and the Examiner agree that the control unit in Imai’s apparatus is not configured to perform the claimed functions. Appeal Br. 6; Final Act. 4. To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to the Kim references. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Kim ’584 discloses controlling rotation of an inner tub and/or a pulsator of a washing machine to perform various combinations of steps, including a tapping washing motion performed by rotating the inner tub in a given direction and the pulsator may be integrally rotated with the inner tub. Final Act. 4–5; Kim ’584 ¶¶8, 40–45, 106, 108. The Examiner further finds that Kim ’022 discloses a washing machine method having a washing cycle in which the pulsator and inner tub are rotated in opposite directions. Final Act. 5; Kim ’022 Figure 7; ¶ 92. From the noted disclosures of the Kim references, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 6 of ordinary skill in the art to modify and configure the control unit of Imai’s apparatus to perform the claimed functions. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish where or how the cited references disclose a control unit configured as claimed. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, the Examiner benefits from impermissible hindsight in arriving at the claimed invention from the teachings of the cited art. Final Act. 7. Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner’s assertion that “driv[ing] the inner rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction, to thus rotate the washing tub and the pulsator in the first direction, and, thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second direction opposite to that of the washing tub” was known “to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator” lacks evidentiary support. Appeal Br. 7 (alteration in original). Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. “[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981). Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not address adequately the rejection the Examiner presents. Further, an obviousness “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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 7 Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Both Kim ’584 and Kim ’022 are directed to enhancing washing performance by controlling rotation of an inner tub and/or a pulsator in various ways during washing of laundry. Kim ’584 ¶ 8; Kim ’022 ¶ 14. As the Examiner points out, the combined teachings of the Kim references disclose it is known to control the rotation of an inner tub and/or pulsator of a washing machine to rotate the inner tub and a pulsator in a given direction (Kim ’584 ¶¶ 40–45) and rotating the inner tub and the pulsator in opposite directions (Kim ‘’022 ¶ 92). Ans. 4. In fact, Kim ’022 discloses that under certain conditions, the inner tub and the pulsator are rotated in the same direction. Kim ’022 Figure 8; ¶ 93. That is, Kim ’022 suggests controlling the rotation of the inner tub and pulsator as claimed. Therefore, the Examiner’s determination that it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, to have configured Imai’s control unit to drive the inner rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction to thus rotate the washing tub and the pulsator in the first direction, and, thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second direction opposite to the first direction to thus rotate the pulsator in the second direction opposite to that of the washing tub is supported by the record. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the “inferences and creative steps,” as well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ). Appeal 2019-004842 Application 15/076,981 8 Thus, the Examiner provided a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to modify Imai’s control unit and reasonably expect that the modified control unit would perform the claimed functions to enhance the washing performance. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1–5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and we give above. We have considered Appellant’s argument with respect to the limitation “to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator” in our deliberations. However, as we explain above, the language “thereby being able” preceding this noted limitation does not positively require that the control unit drive the inner tub and pulsator for that purpose. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 17 103 Imai, Kim ’584, Kim ’022 1–5, 17 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation