Ex Parte Barber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

13019345 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
13/019,345 02/02/2011 Judith Barber 2010P02662US 1321
46726 7590 04/24/2017
RS»H Home. Annlianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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 JUDITH BARBER, JOSEPH GEIGER, TAO GENG,
and MICHAEL GERDES
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Judith Barber et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 17—23.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is BSH Bosch und Siemens
Hausgerate GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A cooking appliance, comprising:
a housing having a cooking cavity;
a heating element mounted inside the cooking cavity,
wherein the heating element comprises a plurality of
substantially straight segments that are arranged parallel to one
another;
a cooking surface located under the heating element; and
a reflector mounted in the cooking cavity above the
heating element, wherein the reflector is configured to reflect
radiation emitted by the heating element toward the cooking
surface, wherein a main body portion of the reflector includes a
plurality of curved segments, each curved segment being aligned
with a corresponding one of the straight segments of the heating
element, and wherein a curved segment located at a central
portion the cooking cavity has a larger focal length than a curved
segment located at a side of the cooking cavity.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—4, 6, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Robinson (US 4,789,771, issued
Dec. 6, 1988), Wong (US 5,156,820, issued Oct. 20, 1992), and
Wiegand (US 1,721,099, issued July 16, 1929).
2) Claims 5, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robinson, Wong, Wiegand, and Takahashi (US
2003/0146200 Al, published Aug. 7, 2003).
3) Claims 7—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Robinson, Wiegand, Wong, and Cook (US 5,805,769, issued
Sept. 8, 1998).
2
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
4) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Robinson and Cook.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 2, 6, 17, 18, 20, and 21
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 17 together. Appeal Br.
6—8. We select claim 1 as representative and claim 17 stands or falls with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Robinson discloses some of the limitations of
claim 1, but fails to disclose a reflector with a plurality of curved segments,
each of which is aligned with a heating element, and a curved segment in the
central portion of the cooking cavity having a larger focal length than a
curved segment located at a side of the cooking cavity. Non-Final Act. 3.
Among the Examiner’s findings are that Robinson discloses a central portion
that is flat with peripheral curved reflectors, and that a flat surface has an
infinite focal length. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Wiegand discloses
curved center portions of a reflector, and Wong discloses “that all segments
of the curved reflector are curved, each reflecting segment lined up with a
corresponding segment of the heating element.” Id. (citing Wiegand, Fig. 5,
Wong, Figs. 1, 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
“to provide the teaching of Wiegand to that of Robinson, so that even the
middle portions have curved surfaces, to both keep the heat even and
concentrated at the center, and to also take advantage of the heating element
so that more of the heat is reflected down.” Id.', see also Ans. 14—15.
3
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
Appellants contend that none of the applied references discloses a
reflective body “having two curves with different curvatures (e.g., different
focal lengths).” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue that none of the references
provides any teaching relating to focal length and, if the references were
combined as suggested by the Examiner, “the result would be curved
segments that all have the same focal length.” Id.
With respect to Appellants’ argument that the references do not
mention focal length, the Examiner responds that “it is well known that a
property of curves is ‘focal length’ and that the references do not mention an
inherent property does not make it unobvious.” Ans. 15. Appellants reply
that “all curves in Wiegand and Wong appear to have the same curvature
and thus the same focal length.” Reply Br. 2. For the following reasons, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
In connection with Appellants’ Figure 6, the Specification discloses
that “the curved segments 152 located towards the center of the cooking
cavity have a longer focal length than the curved segments 156 located at the
left and right sides of the cooking cavity.” Spec. 115. Figure 6 shows that
curved segments 152 are relatively “flatter” than the curved segments 156 at
the sides of the cooking cavity. Id. Fig. 6. Based on Appellants’
Specification, we understand that the flatter a curved segment, the longer its
focal length. This understanding is consistent with statements by both
Appellants and the Examiner that a completely flat surface has an infinite
focal length. See Appeal Br. 7; Non-Final Act. 4.
Wong discloses a reaction chamber with an array of lamps, wherein
“[a] reflecting surface on the housing includes a lamp seat for each lamp in
the array with an individually specified position, curvature and tilt with
4
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
respect to the reaction surface.” Wong, Abstract (emphasis added). Wong
discloses that a “plurality of lamps LI though L7 is mounted within a
respective lamp seat 101,102,103,104,105,106 and 107.” Id. at col. 7,11.
16—18, Fig. 3. Wong also discloses that the “curvature of each of the lamp
seats is illustrated in FIG. 4.” Id. at col. 7,11. 56—57. We note that the lower
reflector surface illustrated in Robinson’s Figure 6 discloses a reflector with
curved surfaces 53 in its central portion that are each aligned with a
respective heater element 50. Robinson, Fig. 6.
We do not agree with Appellants that the lamp seats disclosed in
Wong all have the same curvature and, hence, the same focal length.
Wong’s Figure 4 shows clearly that the center lamp seat 104 has a different
curvature, and consequently, a different focal length, than the other lamp
seats 101—103 and 105—107. This observation is supported by the data listed
in Wong’s Table 2. Table 2 of Wong provides that lamp seat 104 has equal
Y coordinates of its focal points G and H indicating a constant curvature.
See Wong, Table 2 (col. 8), col. 8,1. 32, Fig. 4. In contrast, side lamp seats
101 and 107 have unequal Y coordinates for their two focal points A and B
indicating a varying curvature. See id. Table 2 (col. 8), col. 8,11. 29-32, Fig.
4.
Appellants’ contention that Wong does not disclose curved segments
with different curvatures and, hence, different focal lengths is not persuasive
because Wong’s Figure 4 and Table 2 disclose that lamp seat 104 does have
a different curvature than lamp seats 101 and 107. We sustain the rejection
of claim 1 because Appellants have not apprised us of error. Claim 17 falls
with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
Appellants do not offer separate arguments for the patentability of
dependent claims 2, 6, 18, 20, and 21, but rely on the same arguments as for
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6—8, 11. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims
2, 6, 18, 20, and 21 for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites a reflector with three curved
segments,
wherein a first curved segment of the reflector located at a central
portion of the cooking cavity has a first focal length, wherein a second
curved segment of the reflector located at a side portion of the
cooking cavity has a second focal length that is smaller than the first
focal length, and wherein a third curved segment of the reflector
having a third focal length that is smaller than the first focal length but
greater than the second focal length is located between the first curved
segment and the second curved segment.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Robinson discloses “portions whose
reflectors have different curves . . . and Wong has more than two reflectors
with different focal lengths, or at least the energy will focus in the heater at
different levels. [] Wiegand also has different focusing length for its
reflectors.” Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious “to take the arrangement of Robinson, and add another
reflector between the two types already accounted for, so that the focus is
different than the other two, of the energy can be better spread out in the
heating enclosure.” Id. Appellants contend that none of the references alone
or in combination would result in a reflector with the curved segments
recited in claim 3. Appeal Br. 7—8. For the following reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 3.
6
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Wong,
Wiegand, or Robinson of a reflector with three adjacent curved segments
where the focal length of the curved segments is largest for the center
segment and decreases to the middle and side segments as recited in claim 3.
Merely adding another reflector as suggested by the Examiner (Non-Final
Act. 5) does not necessarily yield the arrangement recited in claim 3. We
do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 because it is based on an unsupported
factual finding. Claim 4 depends from claim 3. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.). We do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 for the same reason stated
for claim 3.
Rejection 2
Claims 5 and 19
Claims 5 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 17, respectively. Appeal
Br. 13, 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Robinson, Wiegand, and
Wong do not disclose the additional limitations recited in claims 5 and 19.
Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses “that
different reflecting segments are different distances away from their heating
elements, specifically that the inside reflecting elements are farther away
than the outside reflecting elements.” Id. at 8—9 (citing Takahashi, Fig. 9).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Robinson with Takahashi’s teaching “in order ‘to improve temperature
uniformity of a substrate’” and given Wong’s disclosure such a modification
would have been at least obvious to try. Id. at 9 (quoting Takahashi 119;
citing Robinson, col. 1,1. 63).
Appellants contend that there is “no difference between Fig. 9 of
Takahashi and Fig. 6 of Robinson with respect to the relative distance from
7
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
the reflector to the heating element.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants argue that
Takahashi cannot overcome the deficiencies in Robinson noted by the
Examiner because it discloses a flat central portion. Id. For the following
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 19.
Figure 9 of Takahashi discloses a reflector with a flat central portion
1121 and curved side segments 1122 wherein the heating elements are
farther from the flat central portion than from the curved side segments.
Takahashi, Fig. 9. As noted above, Appellants acknowledge that a flat
surface has an infinite focal length. Appeal Br. 7. Takahashi thus discloses
a reflector where the heating elements are further from the portion of the
reflector with the longer focal length, that is, the flat central portion.
Appellants’ argument that Takahashi discloses a flat central portion is an
attack on Takahashi individually, but, the rejection is based on the combined
teachings of Robinson, Wiegand, Wong, and Takahashi. The combination
of Robinson, Wiegand, and Wong in the rejection of claim 1 results in a
reflector with a curved central portion with a longer focal length than the
side curved portion. Takahashi adds the additional teaching of placing the
heating elements further away from the reflector portion with the longer
focal length. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references.).
Appellants’ contention that the disclosure in Takahashi is cumulative
of Robinson is also not persuasive. Figure 6 of Robinson shows that the flat
central portion of the reflector is farther from the corresponding heating
elements than are the side curved portions. Robinson, Figure 6. However,
Figure 9 of Takahashi clearly illustrates the differing distances, showing that
8
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
the heating elements nearly abut the curved side portions 1122 and clearly
showing a space between the heating elements and the flat center portion
1121. Takahashi, Figure 9. As Appellants have not apprised us of error, we
sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 19.
Claims 22 and 23 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appellants do not address the rejection of claims 22
and 23, but argue that the claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim
1. Id. at 9—11. We sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 23 for the same
reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Rejection 3
Claims 7—11
Claims 7—11 depend directly or indirectly form claim 1. Appeal Br.
14 (Claims App.). Appellants do not address the rejection of claims 7—11,
but argue that these claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Id. at 6—11. We sustain the rejection of claims 7—11 for the same reasons as
stated above for claim 1.
Rejection 4
Claim 12
Independent claim 12 is directed to a cooking appliance comprising,
inter alia, a “reflector including a main body portion located over the
heating element and side reflector portions that are located at side edges of
the main body portion, the side reflector portions extending downward from
the main body portion . . . being disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to
the main body portion.” Appeal Br. 14—15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Robinson discloses all the limitations of
claim 12 except for “the side reflecting portions extending downward from
9
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
the main body portion towards the cooking surface, and being disposed at an
obtuse angle with respect to the main body portion.” Non-Final Act. 13.
The Examiner finds that Cook discloses a reflector that comes down from
the main body portion and curves through an obtuse angle with respect to the
main body portion. Id. (citing Cook, Fig. 8). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to combine Robinson with Cook “in order that the
radiation is better focused on the food and so that less heat leaks out the
sides and is not well used.” Id.
Appellants contend that “Cook discloses a reflector formed entirely of
parabolic reflectors.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellants argue that Cook does not
disclose a main body portion and the parabolic reflectors do not form an
angle with anything. Id. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12.
Appellants’ Figure 3 discloses a reflector with main body portion 120
and side portions 122 extending downward from the main body portion 120.
Spec. 1 8, Fig. 3. Figure 3 illustrates that side portions 122 are disposed at
an obtuse angle with respect to main body portions 120.
Figure 8 of Cook discloses a reflector formed from three adjoining
parabolas. Cook, Fig. 8. The Examiner does not identify a specific portion
of Cook’s reflector that constitutes a main body portion, or adequately
explain where there is an obtuse angle between a main body portion and side
portions. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Cook discloses side
portions disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to the main body portion is
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We, thus, do not sustain
the rejection of claim 12.
10
Appeal 2015-004937
Application 13/019,345
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—11, and 17—23 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 4, and 12 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11