Ex Parte Alaman Aguilar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2018

14037736 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/037,736 09/26/2013
46726 7590 09/17/2018
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jorge Alaman Aguilar
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.
2012PO l 649US 8453
EXAMINER
MAYE,AYUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2018 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORGE ALAMAN AGUILAR,
RAFAEL ALONSO ESTEBAN,
MIGUEL ANGEL BUNUEL MAGDALENA,
ENRIQUE CARRETERO CHAMARRO,
ANDRES ESCARTIN BARDUZAL,
FRANCISCO JAVIER ESTER SOLA,
FRANCISCO JAVIER PELA YO ZUECO,
PILAR PEREZ CABEZA,
FERNANDO PLANAS LAYUNTA,
JESUS MARIO SUBIAS DOMINGO, and
FRANCISCO VILLUENDAS YUSTE
Appeal 2018-001179
Application 14/037,736
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jorge Alaman Aguilar et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 15-
24.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH is the applicant and identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001179
Application 14/037,736
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to a cooktop apparatus. Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cooktop apparatus, comprising:
a glass unit;
a touch-sensitive sensor that senses a touch by a user of
the cooktop to control a function of the cooktop; and
a coating configured as a multilayer structure and disposed
on at least one subregion of a main face of the glass unit between
the glass unit and the touch-sensitive sensor, said coating having
a first layer formed by a semiconducting material;
a second layer formed by a semiconducting
material; and
an insulating layer which is formed of electrically
insulating material and disposed between the first layer and the
second layer.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 12, 15-17, and 21-24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Alonso Esteban (US 2012/0125314
Al, published May 24, 2012) and Ikegami (JP 2010-159171 A, published
July 22, 2010).
2) Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Alonso Esteban, Ikegami, and Striegler (US 7,763,832
B2, issued July 27, 2010).
2
Appeal 2018-001179
Application 14/037,736
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, a "coating having a first layer formed by a
semiconducting material; a second layer formed by a semiconducting
material; and an insulating layer which is formed of electrically insulating
material and disposed between the first layer and the second layer." Appeal
Br. 11 (Claims App.). Independent claim 11 includes a substantially similar
limitation. See id. at 12-13.
The Examiner finds that Alonso Esteban discloses most of the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, including a coating having an
insulating material disposed between first and second layers. Final Act. 3, 4.
The Examiner relies on Ikegami to disclose first and second layers that are
made from a semiconducting material. Id. at 6 ( citing Ikegami, Abstract).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use semiconducting
material layers for the first and second layers of Alonso Esteban for the
reasons disclosed in the abstract of Ikegami, namely, "to provide a top plate
for a cooker capable of visually concealing parts such as a temperature
sensor disposed in the inside of the cooker, suppressing reflected light, and
having a color with lowered brightness." Id. For the reasons discussed
below, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
First, layers 3 and 4 of Ikegami, relied on by the Examiner as being
first and second semiconducting materials, are directly on top of one another
in Ikegami, and as Appellants correctly note, Ikegami does not "suggest
placing an insulating layer between two semiconductor layers," as required
by the claims. See Ikegami, Fig. 1; Appeal Br. 7. Although we appreciate
3
Appeal 2018-001179
Application 14/037,736
that Alonso Esteban has an insulating layer between metal layers, the
Examiner does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would maintain the insulating layer of Alonso Esteban between the two
semiconducting layers of Ikegami. See Reply Br. 4. In other words, the
Examiner does not adequately explain why the skilled artisan would replace
the metal layers of Alonso Esteban with the semiconducting layers of
Ikegami.
Second, the Examiner's position, in the Answer, that the combination
yields predictable results is not adequately supported. See Ans. 8. The
Examiner does not direct us to any portion of Ikegami that suggests
semiconducting materials are known replacements for the metallic layers of
Alonso Esteban. Nor does the Examiner provide other evidence that it is
known in the appliance art to replace metallic layers with semiconducting
materials.
Finally, Ikegami discloses a cooker plate having several layers that are
formed in a particular order. Ikegami, Abstract, Fig. 1. The materials and
arrangement of Ikegami' s layers together provide the advantages discussed
in the abstract of Ikegami. The Examiner does not adequately explain why
one of ordinary skill would choose only two of these layers, namely the
semiconducting layers, and expect the same advantages when sandwiching
the insulating layer of Alonso Esteban between the two semiconducting
layers. As such, the Examiner's reasoning for combining Alonso Esteban
and Ikegami' s teachings is not supported by factual evidence.
Because the rejection is not supported by a rational underpinning, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11 as unpatentable over Alonso
Esteban and Ikegami. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5-7,
4
Appeal 2018-001179
Application 14/037,736
12, 15-1 7, and 21-24 that depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 or 11
for the same reasons.
Rejection 2
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
The Examiner does not rely on the disclosure of Striegler in any manner that
would remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of claims 1 and 11 based on
Alonso Esteban and Ikegami discussed above. Final Act. 6-7. For the same
reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8-10
and 18-20 as unpatentable over Alonso Esteban, Ikegami, and Striegler.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 15-24 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5