Ex Parte Date et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14233323 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/233,323 01/16/2014 Milind Vishwas Date
24737 7590 12/26/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00370WOUS 7675
EXAMINER
LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MILIND VISHWAS DATE, KAM WENG CHOY,
and JOHANNES WILLEM TACK
Appeal2018-004080
Application 14/233,323
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Milind Vishwas Date et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5-12. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N. V. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004080
Application 14/233,323
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A domestic appliance comprising:
a base frame;
an actuator provided with a drive member and arranged for
reciprocating movement of the drive member;
a rigid sub frame, wherein the actuator is mounted on the
rigid sub frame; and
a resilient member that comprises at least one elastomer
mount arranged between the rigid sub frame and the base frame
for moveably mounting the rigid sub frame at the base frame,
wherein an interior portion of the at least one elastomer mount is
constructed and arranged to allow both (i) deflection in an x,y
direction for lateral movement of the rigid sub frame in a plane
parallel to the base frame and (ii) rotation in a plane of the rigid
sub frame for rotation of the rigid sub frame around an axis
of rotation transverse to the plane of the base frame, wherein the
at least one elastomer mount further comprises a disc shaped
elastomer mount and the interior portion comprises the disc
shaped elastomer mount with a portion of material removed from
an interior of the disc shaped elastomer mount of a length L,
between a first point of the elastomer mount where the elastomer
mount rests on the base frame and a second point of the elastomer
mount where on the rigid sub frame rests, and in which a distance
d along a horizontal cross-section, between a side of the
elastomer mount and the base frame, is sufficiently large,
together with length L, allows both (i) the deflection of the disc
shaped elastomer mount in the x,y direction and (ii) the rotation
of the disc shaped elastomer mount in the plane of the rigid sub
frame.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-004080
Application 14/233,323
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Schoenmeyr (US 5,649,812, issued July 22,
1977) and Durand (US 4,858,880, issued Aug. 22, 1989).
II. Claims 1, 5-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Panesar (US 2007/0157821 Al, published July
12, 2007), Schoenmeyr, Durand, and Folcarelli (US 2012/0098253
Al, published Apr. 26, 2012).
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Panesar, Schoenmeyr, Durand, Folcarelli, and Bentley
(US 2010/0107887 Al, published May 6, 2010).
DISCUSSION
All of the rejections are predicated in pertinent part on the Examiner's
finding that Durand teaches a resilient member comprising an elastomer
mount constructed and arranged between the rigid sub frame and the base
frame as recited in claim 1 to allow both (i) deflection in an x,y direction for
lateral movement of the rigid sub frame in a plane parallel to the base frame
and (ii) rotation in a plane of the rigid sub frame for rotation of the rigid sub
frame around an axis of rotation transverse to the plane of the base frame,
including, in particular, a portion of material removed from an interior of the
mount of a length L between a first point of the elastomer mount at which
the elastomer mount rests on the base frame and a second point of the
elastomer mount on which the rigid sub frame rests, thereby providing a
distanced (i.e., spacing) along a horizontal cross-section, between a side of
the elastomer mount and the base frame that is sufficiently large, together
3
Appeal2018-004080
Application 14/233,323
with length L, to allow both the deflection of the elastomer mount in the x,y
direction and the rotation of the elastomer mount in the plane of the rigid sub
frame around an axis of rotation transverse to the plane of the base frame.
See Ans. 3--4. Appellants argue that Durand does not teach a resilient
member satisfying these limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14--15. In
particular, Appellants argue that Durand does not teach, and, in fact,
"teaches away from a resilient member constructed and arranged to allow
both deflection and rotation during operational use." Id. at 14; Reply Br. 8
( emphases omitted).
In response, the Examiner states that "since the structure disclosed by
Appellant[ s] and the structure disclosed by Durand are essentially identical,
they must also be functionally identical." Ans. 10. In other words, the
Examiner relies on a finding that the structures of Appellants and Durand are
identical to support a finding that "the structure taught by Durand must be
capable of performing the functions recited by Appellant." Id. at 11.
Further, "[t]he Examiner also notes that nothing disclosed by Durand
indicates in any way that the structure detailed therein could not perform the
functions recited in the claims." Id. The Examiner also finds that because
Appellants and Durand both teach mounting structure for the same purpose
(isolating vibrations of a mounted actuator), "they must be capable of
performing the same functions." Id. In summary, "[t ]he Examiner
maintains that since Durand discloses a structure identical to Appellant[ s'
invention], used for the same purpose and in the same context as
Appellant[ s' invention], ... Durand teaches the limitations of the claims."
Id.
4
Appeal2018-004080
Application 14/233,323
Appellants submit "that the Examiner has erred in maintaining that the
disclosed structure of Durand is identical to the claimed structure." Reply
Br. 5 (boldface omitted). Appellants then describe in detail several material
distinctions between the structure of Appellants' invention and that of
Durand. See id. at 5-9.
One of the distinctions noted by Appellants is reduced diameter
portion 31 of central passage 28 of Durand's resilient primary support 16.
Id. at 6. As shown in Figure 1 of Durand, annular air space 41 does not
extend to the bottom of resilient primary support 16; rather, because of
reduced diameter portion 31, primary resilient support 16 is in contact with
rigid spacer sleeve 18 at the bottom thereof. See Durand 4:29-31 (teaching
that even mild lateral movement of supported member 12 is absorbed by
shear stress in head portion 26 and rebound pad 17 (not by movement or
rotation of resilient primary support 16), while more severe lateral
movement of supported member 12 causes tubular portion 27 to engage rigid
spacer sleeve 18 and further movement is absorbed by compressing tubular
portion 27). This is in contrast to Appellants' invention, in which the
spacing ( distance d) between the inner wall of resilient disc shaped
elastomer mount 21 extends to the bottom thereof. See Spec. 5:20-23;
Fig. 3.
We do not find that Durand explicitly teaches away from a resilient
member constructed and arranged to allow both deflection and rotation, as
Appellants contend (Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 8). However, the Examiner
does not point to, and we do not find, any disclosure in Durand of rotational
movement of resilient primary support 16 or annular rebound pad 17. Thus,
the Examiner relies on a finding that the structures of Durand's resilient
5
Appeal2018-004080
Application 14/233,323
member and Appellants' resilient member are structurally identical to
support the position that Durand's resilient member must be capable of
performing all of the functions of Appellants' invention, including the
elastomer mount being constructed and arranged to allow both deflection of
the elastomer mount in the x,y direction for lateral movement of the rigid
sub frame and rotation of the elastomer mount for rotation of the rigid sub
frame as called for in claim 1. This finding that the structures of Durand and
Appellants are essentially identical is not correct, as discussed above.
The Examiner's position that because Appellants and Durand both
teach mounting structure for the same purpose (isolating vibrations of a
mounted actuator), "they must be capable of performing the same functions"
(Ans. 11) is untenable. Merely that two devices are used for the same
purpose or in the same environment does not necessarily mean that they both
are capable of performing all of the same functions.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Durand teaches a resilient member
comprising an elastomer mount constructed and arranged to allow both
deflection of the elastomer mount in the x,y direction and rotation of the
elastomer mount, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5-12.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
6