Ex Parte Chavan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

13546069 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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.
13/546,069 07/11/2012 AJAY YASHWANT CHAVAN SUB-01916-US-NP 1997
173 7590 06/22/2017
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
CHEN, KUANGYUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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 AJAY YASHWANT CHAVAN and
ARUNKUMAR BALASUBRAMANIAN
Appeal 2015-007550
Application 13/546,069
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ajay Yashwant Chavan and Arunkumar Balasubramanian
(Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—
19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-007550
Application 13/546,069
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cooking appliance comprising:
a chassis including a bottom wall and a peripheral side
wall portion established by side walls extending from the bottom
wall, said side walls being provided with a plurality of openings;
a cooktop arranged at least one of atop and within the
chassis, said cooktop including a lower surface;
at least one opening formed in the chassis to allow passage
of air into the chassis;
at least one heating element;
a control box mounted at least one of within and adjacent
the chassis and housing electrical components for the heating
elements; and
a ventilation system for providing a flow of cooling air for
the electrical components including:
at least one trim member attached to the cooktop for
spacing the cooktop from a mounting surface by a gap;
an inner duct extending over at least a portion of the
control box and including an end portion extending to at least one
of the at least one opening; and
an outer duct extending from the peripheral side wall
portion, wherein a cooling airflow is adapted to be drawn into the
chassis through the at least one opening, pass through the inner
and outer ducts, and exhaust through the gap established by the
at least one trim member.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Arntz
Nam
Kim
Adam
US 7,049,552 B2 May 23, 2006
US 7,696,454 B2 Apr. 13, 2010
US 2008/0142512 A1 June 19, 2008
US 2009/0127247 A1 May 21, 2009
US 2010/0072189 A1 Mar. 25,2010Marchand
2
Appeal 2015-007550
Application 13/546,069
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11—15, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim and Adam.
II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Adam, and Amtz.
III. Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim, Adam, and Nam.
IV. Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Adam, and Marchand.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Kim and Adam disclose or suggest all of the
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3^4. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Kim discloses “an inner duct 60 (flow guide, Fig. 1, Page 2,10030)
extending over at least a portion of the control box and including an end
portion extending to one opening 13” and “an outer duct (the duct structure
on the outside of cooling air discharge port 13, Fig. 1) extending from the
peripheral side wall portion.” Id. at 4.
Appellants contend that “Kim does not disclose ... an inner duct
including an end portion extending to at least one of the at least one
openings; and an outer duct extending from the peripheral side wall
portion.” Appeal Br. 8. In support of this contention, Appellants explain
that Kim’s flow guide 60 “does not include an end portion extending to
either of the [] opening[s] (i.e., ports 11 and 13), as claimed.” Id.
Appellants further explain that “flow guide 60 does not even include an end
3
Appeal 2015-007550
Application 13/546,069
portion extending toward ports 11 and 13 since flow guide 60 is arranged
perpendicular to ports 11 and 13.” Id.
Appellants are correct. As shown in Figure 1, Kim’s flow guide 60
extends parallel to the wall of Kim’s case in which Kim’s ports 11 and 13
are formed, and thus perpendicular to the openings in the side wall. Further,
Kim’s description of flow guide 60 does not describe any portion of flow
guide 60 that extends to either of the ports 11 and 13. See Kim 135.
Rather, Kim describes flow guide 60 as being coupled to the heat sink 53.
Id. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants further argue that Kim fails to disclose an outer duct. See
Appeal Br. 8. Appellants note that “the rejection identifies ‘the duct
structure on the outside of cooling air discharge port 13, Fig. 1’ (see page 4
of the Office Action) [as corresponding to the claimed outer duct], but the
Applicant can see no such structure.” Id. Appellants note that “[t]he claim
specifically requires an outer duct extending from a side wall portion. Port
13 is not a duct and does not extend from a sidewall; port 13 is simply a hole
in a sidewall.” Id.
Again, Appellants are correct. Figure 1 does not show any structure
on the outside of cooling air discharge port 13 and to the extent that some
such structure is shown, it does not fairly read on the claimed outer duct.
See Kim, Fig. 1. Moreover, the Examiner has not identified any portion of
Kim, which describes such a structure. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11—15, which depend therefrom. Claim
17 similarly requires “an inner duct extending over at least a portion of the
4
Appeal 2015-007550
Application 13/546,069
control box and including an end portion extending to at least one of the
plurality of openings; and an outer duct extending from the peripheral side
wall portion to the interior body portion of the countertop.” Appeal Br. 23.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17
for the same reasons.
Rejections II—IV
Rejections II—IV rely on the same unsupported findings as the
rejection of claims 1 and 17 discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 18, and
19, as set forth in Rejections II—IV, for the same reasons we do not sustain
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5