Ex Parte Alonso Esteban et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13388465 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/388,465 02/02/2012 Rafael Alonso Esteban 2009P01665WOUS 4511
46726 7590 05/02/2017
RS»H Home. Armlianoes; Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
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 RAFAEL ALONSO ESTEBAN,
MIGUEL ANGEL BUNUEL MAGDALENA,
FRANCISCO JAVIER ESTER SOLA,
JOSE-RAMON GARCIA JIMENEZ,
FRANCISCO JAVIER PELAYO ZUECO,
PILAR PEREZ CABEZA,
FERNANDO PLANAS LAYUNTA,
DIEGO SANCHO MARTINEZ,
JESUS MARIO SUBIAS DOMINGO, and
FRANCISCO VILLUENDAS YUSTE
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rafael Alonso Esteban et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14—25 and 27—33.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
14. A hob, comprising:
at least one heating inductor; and
a glass or glass ceramics cover plate having at least one
side coated with a metal layer, said metal layer having a cover
region which covers the heating inductor, and a surrounding
region which surrounds the cover region, said cover region being
electrically insulated from the surrounding region.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 14, 17, 23—25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Haag (US 2008/0073337 Al, pub.
Mar. 27, 2008) and Gratz (US 6,753,509 B2, iss. June 22, 2004).
Ans. 2-4.
II. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haag, Gratz, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior
Art. Ans. 4—5.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgerate GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 26, which is the only other claim pending in the application, has
been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary).
2
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
III. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haag, Gratz, and Odor (US 4,649,249, iss. Mar. 10, 1987).
Ans. 6.
IV. Claims 19-22, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Haag, Gratz, and Demol
(US 2008/0190409 Al, pub. Aug. 14, 2008). Ans. 6-9.
V. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haag, Gratz, and Keishima (WO 2006/082753 Al, pub. Aug.
10, 2006 (relying on US 8,129,664 B2, iss. Mar. 6, 2012, as its
English translation)). Ans. 9.
VI. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haag, Gratz, Demol, and Allredeen (US 7,126,095 B2, iss.
Oct. 24, 2006). Ans. 9-10.
VII. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haag, Gratz, Demol, Allredeen, and Keishima. Ans. 10.
VIII. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Keishima, Gratz, and Song (US 2007/0119845 Al, pub. May
31,2007). Ans. 10-11.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Independent claim 14 recites “[a] hob, comprising,” in relevant part, a
“metal layer having a cover region which covers [a] heating inductor, and a
surrounding region which surrounds the cover region, said cover region
being electrically insulated from the surrounding region.” Appeal Br. 16
(Claims App.). The rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Haag
3
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
and Gratz is predicated in part on the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious to combine Haag’s metal layer (Haag, Fig. 1, coating 26),
which covers an inductive heating coil (induction coil 17), with Gratz’s
insulation element (Gratz, Fig. 2, insulating ring 11), which separates a
heating coil (heating conductor 15) into two heating areas. Ans. 2—3, 12—13.
The Examiner determines this combination of a metal cover layer and an
insulative separator element renders obvious a metal layer having the
claimed “cover region being electrically insulated from [a] surrounding
region.” Id. The Examiner relies on Song as further evidence that it is well-
known in the art to provide a separator element in an inductive heating coil.
Ans. 13 (citing Song | 39 and Figs. 5—6).
Appellants contend, inter alia, that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been prompted by the teachings of either Gratz or Song to
provide an electrical insulation region between two areas of Haag’s metal
layer to form the claimed “cover region which covers the heating inductor,
and a surrounding region which surrounds the cover region.” Appeal Br. 7—
8; Reply Br. 3^4. For the reasons that follow, we find Appellants’ argument
persuasive of error in the rejection.
A conclusion of obviousness must be supported by explicit findings
and analysis establishing an apparent reason to combine the known elements
in the manner required in the claim at issue. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Although we agree that Gratz (e.g., Fig. 2) and
Song (e.g., Fig. 5) teach forming a separation element within a heating coil
itself, the Examiner does not proffer any evidence or technical explanation
to support the assertion that it would have been obvious to form a separation
element within Haag’s metal cover layer, which covers the heating coil and
4
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
is, therefore, distinct from the heating coil. See Ans. 2—3, 12—13 (citing
Haag, Fig. 1, cover metal layer 26). Further, the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for combining Haag and Gratz lacks a “rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Specifically, the
Examiner has not provided any explanation to support the determination that
forming a separation region in Haag’s metal cover layer, which covers the
heating coil and has a grounded connection to prevent electric shock at the
cooking vessel (Haag 125), would result in separate heating areas that can
be controlled individually to adjust the heat at the cooking surface. Ans. 2—
3, 13.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner proffers an alternative
interpretation of claim 14 that does not require “a surrounding region” to be
part of “said metal layer.” Ans. 13—14. When claim terminology is
construed during prosecution of an application for patent in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants’ Specification consistently describes the
cover region and surrounding region as two regions of the same metal layer.
See, e.g., Spec. Tflf 25, 27. Moreover, the corresponding use of the term
“region” in the claim limitation “surrounding region” in claims 14 and 33,
following the limitation “metal layer having a cover region,” itself suggests
that the “surrounding region” and the “cover region” form part of the same
5
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
whole (i.e., the “metal layer”).3 Thus, we agree with Appellants’ contention
that the Examiner’s alternative interpretation of “a surrounding region” as
not part of “the metal layer” is unreasonably broad. Reply Br. 4.
Therefore, the Examiner fails to set forth the requisite factual findings
and analysis establishing an apparent reason to combine the references to
support the conclusion of obviousness of the subject matter of independent
claim 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14, 17, 23—25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haag
and Gratz.
Rejections II—VII
Dependent claims 15, 16, 18—22, 27, and 29—33 incorporate the
subject matter of independent claim 14 discussed supra with regard to
Rejection I. See Appeal Br. 16—19 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not
articulate any additional findings or reasoning, or rely on any teachings in
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, Odor, Demol, Keishima, or Alffedeen, that
would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in Rejection I. See Ans. 4—17.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 15, 16, 18—22, 27,
and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3 “[T]he context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be
considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those
terms.” Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (citing ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir.
2003); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (reading claim language “in the appropriate context of the claim
language and specification” in determining “the broadest reasonable
construction” of the claim language).
6
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
Rejection VIII
Independent claim 33 recites “[a] hob, comprising,” in relevant part, a
“metal layer applied to the lower side of the cover plate, the metal layer
having a cover region which covers the induction heater, and a surrounding
region which surrounds the cover region, wherein the cover region is
electrically insulated from the surrounding region.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims
App.). The rejection of claim 33 as being unpatentable over Keishima,
Gratz, and Song is deficient for reasons similar to Rejection I over Haag and
Gratz. Keishima’s metal layer (Fig. 1, electrical conductor 4), which the
Examiner cited as the claimed “metal layer having a cover region” (Ans.
11), covers the inductive heating coil and prevents electric shock (see
Keishima col. 4,11. 20—25) in a manner similar to Haag’s grounded metal
cover layer. As discussed supra, the Examiner fails to set forth the requisite
factual findings and analysis establishing an apparent reason why a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine the
grounded metal layer of Keishima with the heating coil separation element
of Gratz or Song in a manner to electrically insulate a cover region of the
metal layer from a surrounding region of the metal layer. Thus, there is
insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of obviousness regarding the
subject matter of independent claim 33. See Ans. 10-11, 18—19.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keishima, Gratz, and Song.
7
Appeal 2015-002857
Application 13/388,465
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14—25 and 27—33 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
8