Ex Parte Bolduan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2015

12308738 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/308,738 12/19/2008
46726 7590 12/14/2015
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edwin Bolduan
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.
2006P01461WOUS 8935
EXAMINER
KO,JASONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2015 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):
NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWIN BOLDUAN, WYNEKEN FIMMEN, and
HORST WIEMER 1
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and SHEILA F.
McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 9-20. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is BSH Bosch and
Siemens Hausgerate GmbH. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to front loading washing
machines and the introduction of detergents into front loading washing
machines. Spec. 1; App. Br. 27-28.
Claim 9 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix:
9. A method for introducing detergents in front loading,
program-controlled washing machines, the method
compnsmg:
driving a front load washing drum including a cylindrical
drum body having openings, the front loading washing drum
rotatably supported about an approximately horizontal axis
in a tub, in a preferred direction of rotation; and
flowing a detergent-liquid mixture in a stream onto an outer
surface of an area of an upper quadrant of the cylindrical
drum body at an oblique angle against the preferred
direction of rotation during the driving of the front load
washing drum in the preferred direction of rotation such that
a portion of the detergent-liquid mixture enters the openings
of the outer surface of the area of the upper quadrant of the
cylindrical drum body for wetting washing items in an
interior of the front load washing drum during the driving of
the front load washing drum in the preferred direction of
rotation.
App. Br. 27.
The Examiner maintains and Appellants appeal the following
rejections:
2
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
1. Claims 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Mandarino2 in view of either Wales 3 or Matsumoto4
and Platt5 ;
2. Claim 10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Mandarino in view of either Wales or Matsumoto and Platt, and
further in view of either Marple 6 or Zinkann; 7 and
3. Claims 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Mandarino in view of either Wales or Matsumoto
and Platt, and further in view of Chamberlin, 8 McCormick, 9
Bartholomew, 10 or Heissmeier. 11
OPINION
Claims 9 and 14
The Examiner finds that Mandarino discloses all of the subject matter
recited in independent claims 9 and 14, with the exception of a front load
washing drum and the detergent including a liquid mixture. Final Act. 4--8.
The Examiner further finds that Platt and either Wales or Matsumoto
disclose these limitations. Id.
2 Mandarino, Jr., et al., US 3,314,254, issued Apr. 18, 1967.
3 Wales, US 2,434,476, issued Jan. 13, 1948.
4 Matsumoto et al., US 5,768,730, issued June 23, 1998.
5 Platt et al., US 4,467 ,627, issued Aug. 28, 1984.
6 Marple, US 3,197,980, issued Aug. 3, 1965.
7 Zinkann, US 4,821,537, issued Apr. 18, 1989.
8 Chamberlin, US 2,430,668, issued Nov. 11, 1947.
9 McCormick, US 1,814,724, issued July 14, 1931.
10 Bartholomew, US 1,097,510, issued May 19, 1914.
11 Heissmeier et al., GB 2136456 A, published Sept. 19, 1984.
3
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
Mandarino discloses a combination washer and dryer. Mandarino
1:10-11. Figure 1 of Mandarino is reproduced below.
Figure 1 of Mandarino shows a schematic view of a washer-dryer
laundry device, including illustrations of "the respective flow paths of gas
and liquid." Id. at 1 :67----69, 2:6-8. The embodiment of Mandarino's device
shown in Figure 1 includes rotatable drum 10 inside tank 19, rinse
conditioner dispenser 27 and line 29 leading from the rinse dispenser 27 to
tank 19. Id. at 2:6-28. Figure 1 also includes an arrow pointing from the
end of line 29 towards drum 10.
Appellants argue that none of the cited prior art references, either
alone or in combination, disclose or suggest flowing or directing a stream of
4
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
detergent liquid onto a cylindrical drum body at an oblique angle to the
preferred direction of rotation of the drum, as required in claims 9 and 14.
App. Br. 10. Appellants contend that the arrow in Figure 1 extending from
the end of line 29 represents the flow or stream of liquid from the outlet of
line 29 towards drum 10, and "clearly shows that the flow path or stream is
normal or perpendicular to the surface of the drum 10." Id. at 12.
According to Appellants, the outlet of line 29 produces, and, therefore, must
contain a structure that causes, the flow path shown by the arrow. Id. at 14;
Reply Br. 19-20. Appellants further contend that Mandarino does not
provide any other description or explanation regarding the flow from rinse
dispenser 27 to tank 19, and, therefore, Mandarino "cannot be inferred to
teach anything more than the features illustrated in Figure 1." App. Br. 11;
see also id. at 15-16 (arguing that Mandarino does not provide any structural
feature, explanation, or teaching supporting the Examiner's position that the
flow path is different from that illustrated in Figure 1 ).
Appellants alternatively argue that to the extent Figure 1 of
Mandarino is only "generally illustrative of the invention," as stated by the
Examiner, then Figure 1 is not enabling prior art, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not be able to determine the precise flow path of fluid
exiting line 29 or the angle at which the fluid would make contact with the
drum 10 without additional information that is not provided in Mandarino.
Reply Br. 20-21; App. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Mandarino
expressly states that rinse dispenser 27 and tank 19, which houses drum 10,
are connected by line 29. Mandarino 2:25-28. Consistent with this
description, Figure 1 of Mandarino clearly shows a washing machine having
5
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
rinse dispenser 27 and a line 29 providing for the flow of fluid from the rinse
dispenser to a rotating drum 10. The lack of any further description of, or
limitation on, these features or the configuration depicted in the embodiment
shown in Figure 1 would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the
art that Mandarino is not limited to the particular orientation depicted in
Figure 1, and that other orientations of line 29 are acceptable, as long as line
29 operates according to its intended purpose of getting the rinse conditioner
in dispenser 27 to the tank and drum. Merck & Co., Inc., v. Biocraft Labs.
Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807---08 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he question under 35 USC
103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made.") (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F .2d 7 4 7, 7 50 ( CCP A 197 6) ); see
also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Accordingly, we find the Examiner reasonably concluded that Figure 1 of
Mandarino is generally illustrative of the invention, and would have
disclosed or suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art the concept of
flowing a detergent stream onto the drum at an oblique angle.
We also agree with the Examiner's determination that there is no
support for Appellants' position that the arrow in Figure 1 shows the flow
path of the detergent is normal or perpendicular to the surface of the drum.
See Ans. 4. Specifically, Appellants have not provided evidence sufficient
to demonstrate that, based on the arrow shown in Figure 1, line 29 would
provide a flow path of detergent that is normal to the surface of 10, as
opposed to being at a minute oblique angle. Id. Accordingly, Appellants
have not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner's finding that
6
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
Mandarino discloses a stream flowing a liquid onto the drum at an oblique
angle. See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For all of these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 9 and 14.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and requires that "the preferred
direction of rotation results in the detergent-liquid mixture falling
downwards in a flow pointing away from a drain opening in the tub." App.
Br. 27.
The Examiner finds that Marple and Zinkann, which are both directed
to washing machines, disclose supplying detergent to a tub in a direction that
points away from the drain opening. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 5-6.
Appellants argue that even if a person of ordinary skill in the art were
motivated to combine Marple or Zinkann with Mandarino, the result would
be adjusting the dispenser in Mandarino to provide detergent from the side
of the drum, as taught by Marple and Zinkann, and that such a configuration
fails to disclose the features of claim 10. App. Br. 21-22.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Marple and Zinkann
disclose washing machines having detergent dispensers positioned on the
side of the drum. Marple Fig. 1; Zinkann Fig. 1. We agree with Appellants
that combining the teachings of these references with Mandarino would
result in modifying the location of the detergent dispenser in Mandarino,
which at best, demonstrates that the detergent would enter from the side of
the drum. Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how such a
configuration results in "the detergent-liquid mixture falling downwards in a
7
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
flow pointing away from a drain opening in the tub," we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 10. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) ("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.") (quoted with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Claims 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19
Dependent claims 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are directed to the openings
in the drum body of the washing machine, and the ability of the openings to
permit liquid detergent to enter the drum body based on the direction of
rotation. See, e.g., App. Br. 27, 29--30.
The Examiner finds that Chamberlin, McCormick, Bartholomew,
and/or Heissmeier disclose cylindrical drums with openings configured as
claimed. Final Act. 9. Appellants contend that the aforementioned
references do not relate to the "purpose or problems" of Mandarino, and
therefore "one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had any apparent
reason to modify" Mandarino in view of these references. App. Br. 24--25.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner
provided a sufficient explanation regarding why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to modify Mandarino in view of these
references, namely to "enhance the wash process." Final Act. 9; see, e.g.,
McCormick at 2:49--53 (stating that the openings disclosed therein assist in
"performing a very thorough cleaning"). Moreover, "any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
8
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
As a result, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 15, 16,
18, and 19.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 9, and further requires "distributing the
flowing over a width of the outer surface of the cylindrical drum body into
the tub according to a depth of the washing drum." App. Br. 28.
The Examiner finds that Matsumoto and Mandarino disclose the
claimed distribution over a width of the drum body. Final Act. 8, Ans. 5.
The Examiner states that "an entire width or a specific portion has [not] been
claimed, and no specifics were claimed regarding the depth of the drum, and
thus any width is considered to be according to a depth of the drum." Ans.
5.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to cite any support for this
rejection. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 29-30.
Figure 1 of Matsumoto shows a plurality of injection nozzles for
"linearly injecting a washing liquid toward laundry in a drum which is
rotatable about a horizontal shaft." Matsumoto Fig. 1, Abstract. In view of
this, and because Appellants fail to address the Examiner's determination
that "any width is considered to be according to a depth of the drum," we
affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
9
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
Claims 13, 17, and 20
Claims 13, 17, and 20 are directed to controlling the speed of rotation
of the cylindrical body drum, and controlling the amount of detergent-liquid
mixture entering the drum by regulating the speed of rotation. App. Br. 28-
30.
The Examiner finds that Wales discloses speed control (Final Act. 8),
and that controlling the amount of detergent-liquid that enters the drum is a
simply a consequence of controlling the speed of rotation (Ans. 5).
Appellants do not dispute that Wales discloses controlling the speed
of a drum, but argue that Wales "has nothing to do with controlling an
amount of the detergent liquid mixture entering the openings" of the drum,
and therefore the Examiner's combination of references fails to disclose the
features of claims 13, 17, and 20. App. Br. 18-19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, as it fails to address
the Examiner's determination that controlling an amount of detergent liquid
mixture entering the openings of the drum is simply a consequence of
controlling the speed of rotation, which is disclosed in Wales. As a result,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13, 17, and 20.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and reverse the rejection of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
10
Appeal2014-000394
Application 12/308,738
AFFIRMED-fN-P ART
11