Ex Parte Bae et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

12155843 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/155,843 06/10/2008
30827 7590 07114/2016
Dentons US LLP
1900 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sang Hun Bae
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.
9988.509.00 6573
EXAMINER
LU,JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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):
mlaip@dentons.com
paul.fugitt@dentons.com
mlapto@mckennalong.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG HUN BAE, CHANG WOO SON, and JU HAN YOON
Appeal2014-008303
Application 12/155,843 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sang Hun Bae et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1---6, 16, 17, 19-23, 25,
and 26.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG Electronics Inc.
Br. 3 (filed Mar. 24, 2014).
2 Claims 7-15, 18, and 24 are cancelled. Id. at 5.
Appeal2014-008303
Application 12/155,843
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "a controlling method of a home
appliance, such as [a] clothes dryer to detect an amount of laundry put
therein and supply fine droplets of water and/or steam according to the
detected laundry amount." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1, 19, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A controlling method of a dryer, the controlling method
compnsmg:
performing a drying process by supplying hot air to a
drum to remove water from laundry;
measuring a drying time period, wherein the drying time
period is determined to be an amount of time taken to perform
the drying process completely;
determining an amount of laundry based on the drying
time period; and
supplying fine droplets of water to the drum according to
the determined amount of laundf'f after the drying process is
completed to release or remove wrinkles from the laundry,
wherein said supplying of fine droplets of water
comprises determining a moisture supply time period according
to the determined amount of laundry and supplying fine
droplets of water during the moisture supply time period.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 16, 17, 19, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pyo (US
2006/0277690 Al, pub. Dec. 14, 2006), Banba (US
2006/0005581 Al, pub. Jan. 12, 2006), and Veraart (US
4,019,259, iss. Apr. 26, 1977).
2
Appeal2014-008303
Application 12/155,843
II. The Examiner rejected claims 2-5 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pyo, Banba, Veraart, and
Grennan (US 4,763,425, iss. Aug. 16, 1988).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Pyo discloses most of the limitations of the
control methods recited in independent claims 1, 19, and 25, but fails to
disclose,
measuring a drying time period and determining an amount of
the laundry based on a drying time period which is determined
to be an amount of time taken to perform the drying process
completely and supplying fine droplets of water/steam to the
drum according to the determined amount of laundry after the
drying process is completed to release or remove wrinkles from
the laundry.
Final Act. 2 (transmitted Oct. 23, 2013) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that Banba discloses supplying fine droplets of water/steam
to a drum of a laundry machine for an amount of time based on the amount
of laundry. See id. at 2-3 (citing Banba i-fi-168-70). The Examiner further
finds that Figure 1 of Veraart discloses a "relationship[] among the
temperature, drying time, dryness and the amount of laundry." Id. at 3.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person
of ordinary skill in the art
to supply steam to the drum according to the amount of laundry
after the drying period is completed in view of the combined
teachings from Pyo [] and Banba and to determine the amount
of laundry based on a drying time period which is determined to
be an amount of time taken to perform the drying process
3
Appeal2014-008303
Application 12/155,843
completely as taught by Fig. 1 of V eraart [] in order to more
efficiently remove wrinkles of laundry.
Ans. 7-8.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, although we
appreciate the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Pyo, Banba,
and V eraart, nonetheless, we note that the Examiner fails to make any
findings with respect to the process step of "measuring a drying time
period," as called for by each of independent claims 1, 19, and 25. The
Examiner explicitly acknowledges that Pyo fails to disclose this step (see
Final Act. 2), but then does not provide additional findings to show that such
a step is known in the prior art. As such, the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by facts, and thus, cannot stand. See In re
Warner; 379 F.2d 1011; 1017 (CCPA 1967).
For example, in Pyo, the drying operation is finished when drying
sensor 72 determines that the level of dryness achieved is sufficient. See
Pyo i-f 44. In Banba, the dryness level of laundry that determines whether the
drying process is complete is based on the discharged air temperature
detected by temperature sensor 49 and not by "measuring a drying time
period." See Banba i-f 68. In Veraart, the drying time period is regulated in
an automatic manner using a load sensor 11 to completely dry clothes
"irrespective of the load size." Veraart, col. 5, 11. 6-14. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellants that the combined teachings of Pyo, Banba, and
Veraart identified in the rejection fail to disclose supplying fine droplets of
4
Appeal2014-008303
Application 12/155,843
water, i.e., steam, for a period of time according to the amount of laundry
that, in tum, is based on a measured drying time period. See Br. 13.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 6, 16, 17, 19, 25, and 26 as
being unpatentable over Pyo, Banba, and Veraart.
Rejection II
The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Grennan does not remedy the
deficiency of Pyo, Banba, and Veraart, as discussed supra. See Final Act.
3--4. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 20-
23 over the combined teachings of Pyo, Banba, Veraart, and Grennan.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 16, 17, 19-23, 25, and
26 is reversed.
REVERSED
5