Ex Parte Chase et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13674266 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
13/674,266 11/12/2012 KEVIN M. CHASE SUB-00749-U S-NP 1032
173 7590 08/01/2017
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
PERRIN, CLARE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. CHASE, THOMAS DELL SPICER, and
LINDSEY ANN WOHLGAMUTH
(Applicant: WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION)1
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 10—
19, 21, and 22. 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Whirlpool Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 4.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 12, 2012
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action appealed from, July 15, 2015 (“Final
Act.”); the Advisory Action dated October 1, 2015 (“Adv. Act.); the Appeal
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ disclosure relates to descaling cartridges for use with a
domestic refrigerator. Spec. 11. Claim 10 is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 19) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded):
10. A domestic refrigerator appliance comprising:
a main valve configured to receive pressurized water from a
domestic water source,
a water heating assembly,
a hot water valve is openable to advance water from the
main valve to the water heating assembly,
a dispenser coupled to the water heating assembly,
a descaling cartridge containing descaling fluid in fluid
communication with the water heating assembly,
a user interface, and
a controller electrically coupled to the hot water valve, the
water heating assembly, and the user interface, wherein the
controller is configured to (i) reconfigure a display to request a
descaling cycle, (ii) receive a user input from the user interface
requesting a descaling cycle, and (iii) open the hot water valve in
response to the user input requesting the descaling cycle so that
descaling fluid is introduced into water advancing through the
water heating assembly and the dispenser.
Brief dated December 1, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer to the
Appeal Brief dated March 23, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief dated May
12, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
An et al.,
(hereinafter “An”)
US 2006/0080991 Al Apr. 20, 2006
Tarr et al.,
(hereinafter “Tarr”)
US 2007/0138096 Al June 21, 2007
Siemer et al.,
(hereinafter “Siemer”)
US 2009/0321335 Al Dec. 31,2009
Garcia et al.,
(hereinafter “Garcia”)
US 2011/0005398 Al Jan. 13,2011
Boussemart US 2011/0030732 Al Feb. 10, 2011
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:3
1. Claims 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boussemart in view of Tarr and optionally An
(“Rejection 1”). Ans. 4.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack
of written description and indefiniteness previously set forth in the Final
Office Action (Final Act. 2—3). Ans. 10.
3
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
2. Claims 14—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boussemart in view of Tarr and optionally An, and further
in view of Siemer (“Rejection 2”). Ans. 4.
3. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boussemart in view of Tarr and optionally An, and
further in view of Garcia (“Rejection 3”).4 Ans. 9.
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner determines that the combination of Boussemart, Tarr,
and An suggests a domestic refrigerator device satisfying all of the
limitations of claim 10 and that the combination would have rendered claim
10 obvious. Ans. 4—6.
Regarding the “wherein the controller is configured to . . . reconfigure
a display to request a descaling cycle” limitation of claim 10, the Examiner
relies on Boussemart and finds that the reference teaches a control unit 11
(i.e., controller) that is configured to reconfigure the user interface in order
for a user to request a descaling program/procedure. Ans. 5 (citing
Boussemart || 16, 58, 60, 63, Figs. 7—10). The Examiner finds further that
Boussemart teaches that the controller is configured to receive a user input
from keyboard 12 and/or touch screen to request a descaling
program/procedure. Id. at 5 (citing Boussemart || 33, 58, Fig. 8).
4 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22 as obvious over the
combination of Boussemart, Tarr, An, and Garcia is set forth and designated
as a New Ground of Rejection in the Answer. Ans. 9—10.
4
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest reconfiguring a
display to request a descaling cycle as required by the claim. App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 3.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive because the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited art teaches or
suggests the “wherein the controller is configured to . . . reconfigure a
display to request a descaling cycle” limitation of claim 10. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness).
The portions of Boussemart upon which the Examiner relies do not
teach or suggest reconfiguring a display to request a descaling cycle, as
required by the claim. In particular, paragraphs 49, 58, 60, 63 and 67—71
and Figures 7—10 of Boussemart do not discuss or show reconfiguring a
display to request a descaling cycle or appear to provide any motivation for
the skilled artisan to modify Boussemart’s device in such a manner.
Moreover, the Examiner points to no evidence or reasoning that the skilled
artisan would have been prompted to modify Boussemart’s controller to
perform the claimed “reconfiguring” function.
As Appellants correctly point out (App. Br. 9), although paragraph 49
of Boussemart discusses that keyboard 12 can be formed from a touch
screen, there is no teaching or suggestion that keyboard 12 displays a request
for a descaling cycle, as claimed. Indeed, there is no request for a descaling
cycle shown on any display at all. Rather, as Appellants explain (App. Br.
9—10), paragraph 49 merely discloses providing one or more buttons which
would enable a user to initiate a descaling cycle and there is no indication
5
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
that keyboard 12 is reconfigured by control unit 11 to request a descaling
cycle in the manner claimed.
The Examiner also does not identify evidence in the record sufficient
to support a finding that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to
modify Boussemarf s beverage preparation device such that the controller is
configured to reconfigure a display to request a descaling cycle, as opposed
to simply providing one or more buttons which would enable a user to
initiate a descaling cycle.
Moreover, for the well-stated reasons provided by Appellants at pages
10-11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2—3 of the Reply Brief, we concur with
Appellants that the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “wherein the
controller is configured to . . . reconfigure a display to request a descaling
cycle” is improper. In particular, we agree with Appellants’ conclusion that,
based on the claim language and in light of the Specification, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the limitation to mean that
the controller itself is configured to perform the action, i.e., the controller
itself is configured to reconfigure a display to request a descaling cycle—
and not simply that a user can request a descaling cycle as the Examiner
contends. See Spec. 137 (disclosing that “[o]nce it is determined if a
descaling cycle is found to be desirable, the controller 70 can direct the user
interface 72 to display a request for a user to initiate the descaling cycle”)
(emphasis added); Spec. 140 (disclosing that “the controller 70 operates the
user interface 72 to display a request for a descaling cycle”).
The Examiner’s assertion that “claim 10 does not require that the
display itself requests the descaling cycle” (Ans. 11) is conclusory and the
Examiner does not identify sufficient evidence in the record or provide an
6
Appeal 2016-005836
Application 13/674,266
adequate technical explanation to support it. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements”).
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner’s determination that the
combination of Boussemart, Tarr, and An suggests a domestic refrigerator
device satisfying all of the limitations of claim 10 and that the combination
would have rendered claim 10 obvious. Because claims 11—13 and 19 each
depends from claim 10, we also cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—13 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Boussemart, Tarr, and An.
Rejections 2 and 3
The foregoing deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding the combination of Boussemart, Tarr, and An are not remedied by
the Examiner’s findings regarding the additional references or combination
of references cited in support of the second and third grounds of rejection.
Accordingly, we also reverse Rejection 2 and Rejection 3.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—19, 21, and 22 are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7