Ex Parte Dietz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2009

10672783 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WALTER DIETZ, DIETHARD KRAUSE,
and DANIEL SCHNEIDER
____________

Appeal 2009-003317
Application 10/672,783
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 June 19, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 15-23. We have

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-003317
Application 10/672,783

jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. A method of controlling a laundry treatment machine
having laundry disposed therein, the method comprising the steps of:

measuring a load parameter using a measuring device, the load
parameter being a function of the laundry disposed in the laundry treatment
machine;

setting an upper and a lower limit of a rotational speed of a drum of
the laundry treatment machine as a function of the load parameter; and

rotating the drum with a drive motor according to the set upper and
lower limits.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 2):
Sakane 5,335,524 Aug. 09, 1994

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of controlling a
laundry treatment machine, e.g., a washing machine. A load parameter,
which may be a function of the weight of the laundry, is measured and such
load parameter is used to set the upper and lower limit of the rotational
speed of the machines’ drum. The drum is then rotated in accordance with
the set upper and lower limits.
Appealed claims 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sakane.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we agree with Appellants that
Sakane does not describe the claimed method within the meaning of § 102.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
2
Appeal 2009-003317
Application 10/672,783

The Examiner maintains that “Sakane teaches determining the load
and setting the required speed profile using the determined load as a function
of the determined load (column 5, lines 12-61, column 6, lines 4-63,
especially lines 45-53)” (Ans. 3, third para.). However, as emphasized by
Appellants, “Sakane does not measure a load parameter and set an upper and
a lower limit of a rotational speed of a drum as a function of the measured
load parameter, as recited in claim 15” (App. Br. 4, first para.). Rather,
“Sakane merely describes controlling the drum between predetermined
lower and upper rotational speed values na and nb of an operation program
stored in a control device 27. See Sakane, column 4, lines 39-54” (Reply Br.
3, first para.). As explained by Appellants, the predetermined speed values
na and nb disclosed by Sakane are themselves predetermined experimentally
and within a range calculated using equation (3). While Sakane’s system
detects the volume of the clothes, which may be fairly characterized as a
load parameter, Appellants correctly point out that the logic control circuit
of Sakane “uses the clothes volume to set the duty ratio such that the pre-
selected speed values na and nb may be attained” (id.). We agree with
Appellants that nowhere does Sakane disclose or suggest that “the pre-
selected speed values should be changed or set as a function of the clothes
volume” (id.).
Since separately argued claims 18 and 23 depend on independent
claim 15, their rejection under § 102 must fall as well.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection.

3
Appeal 2009-003317
Application 10/672,783

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

REVERSED

ssl

DARBY & DARBY P.C.
P.O. BOX 770
CHURCH STREET STATION
NEW YORK, NY 10008-0770

4