Ex Parte HALLGREN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

13747847 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/747,847 01/23/2013
130348 7590 08/24/2018
Whirlpool Corporation/ McGarry Bair PC
2000 North M63
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
FREDRIK HALLGREN
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.
SUB-02214-US-NP 4596
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2018 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):
patents@mcgarrybair.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 FREDRIK HALLGREN, DAVIDE P ARACHINI,
GIANPIERO SANT ACATTERINA, and DANIELE DEVITO 1
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Fredrik Hallgren et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 16-20. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Whirlpool Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "a microwave heating
apparatus." Spec. 1:3--4. Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below from page 10 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A microwave heating apparatus comprising:
a cavity arranged to receive at least one load having load
reg10ns;
a plurality of independently controllable microwave
generators;
a plurality of feeding ports configured to feed
microwaves from the plurality of microwave generators to the
cavity, wherein the microwaves provide mode fields in the
cavity; and
a control unit configured to:
obtain a desired temperature pattern for the at least
one load based on information about the load regions;
determine a heating pattern in the cavity
comprising zones of different intensities corresponding to the
desired temperature pattern, wherein a zone of higher intensity
in the determined heating pattern corresponds to a region
requiring higher temperature in the desired temperature pattern;
and
control at least one of the plurality of
independently controllable microwave generators or the
plurality of feeding ports so the mode fields form the
determined heating pattern and thereby heat the at least one
load according to the desired temperature pattern.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as being anticipated Takizaki (US 2006/0289526 Al, published
Dec. 28, 2006).
2
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Takizaki and Yoshino (US 6,274,859 Bl, issued
Aug. 14, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a control unit that is
configured to "determine a heating pattern in the cavity comprising zones of
different intensities corresponding to the desired temperature pattern,
wherein a zone of higher intensity in the determined heating pattern
corresponds to a region requiring higher temperature in the desired
temperature pattern" and to control the microwave generators or feeding
ports "so the mode fields form the determined heating pattern and thereby
heat the at least one load according to the desired temperature pattern."
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Independent claim 16 similarly requires the
control unit be configured to "determine a heating pattern ... comprising a
plurality of zones having different intensities" and to control the signals
generated by the signal generator "for combining mode fields provided by at
least one of the signal generators thereby providing the heating pattern
within said cavity." Id. at 12-13 (Claims App.). Thus, both independent
claims require the control unit be configured to provide a heating pattern
having zones of differing intensity by controlling the mode fields imparted
by the microwave generators. In this manner, a heating pattern of varying
profile is imparted to the food load such that regions requiring a greater
amount of heat are heated to a greater degree and regions requiring less heat
are heated to a lesser degree. See, e.g., Spec. 15: 15-24, 16:7-14.
3
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
The Examiner relies on Takizaki to disclose all elements of claims 1
and 16, including the control unit configured as described immediately
above. Final Act. 2--4, 6-7. Takizaki recognizes that the typically used
microwave wavelength of 2.45 GHz creates heating spots that are about 6
cm apart, which can lead to uneven heating. Takizaki ,r 4. To reduce
uneven heating, Takizaki discloses using microwaves having wavelengths of
5.8 GHz, which create heating spot intervals of 2.5 cm, but recognizes that
this shorter wavelength does not permit microwaves to penetrate the object
deep enough for even heating. Id. ,r,r 10-11. As such, Takizaki applies
microwaves of both frequencies to ensure even and thorough heating. See,
e.g., id. ,r,r 57-58.
As correctly noted by Appellants (see Appeal Br. 4--5), Takizaki
repeatedly discloses its objective to be providing a uniform heating pattern.
See, e.g., Takizaki ,r,r 13, 28, 35. Indeed, the portions of Takizaki cited by
the Examiner as corresponding to the recited temperature pattern comprising
zones of differing intensities describe uniform heating, not providing heat of
varying intensity to various regions of the object. See, e.g., Ans. 3 (citing
Takizaki ,r,r 60, 74, 147). Ans. 3. For example, paragraph 60 describes an
embodiment having first and second inverters that impart wavelengths of
2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHz, respectively, in which the inverters are
independently controlled so the different wavelength frequencies can be
imparted simultaneously or alternately. Each of these wavelengths,
however, is imparted to the heating chamber evenly so that the "heating
distribution ... which is uniform can be supplied to the heating chamber, an
irregularity in heating is restrained from being brought about, and even the
thick-walled heated object can be heated to process swiftly and uniformly."
4
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
Takizaki ,r 58 ( emphases added). Paragraph 74 explicitly states that uniform
heating is achieved: "uniform formation of the heating temperature is
achieved, and a state of uniformly heating the heated object with a small
temperature distribution can be constituted" ( emphases added). Paragraph
147 also explicitly states that uniform heating is achieved: "a comparatively
uniform electric field intensity is constituted in the heating chamber 111,
which contributes to uniform heating of the heated object G" ( emphases
added).
The Examiner appears to rely on Takizaki' s disclosure of a "heating
pattern," which is mentioned only in paragraphs 60 and 74. See Ans. 4.
However, Takizaki's heating pattern appears to refer to the timing of
imparting microwaves of different wavelength to achieve uniform heating of
various objects rather than a pattern of differing intensity. As noted above,
each of paragraphs 60 and 7 4 describes a uniform heating temperature
distribution.
Because the Examiner does not establish where every element of
claims 1 and 16 are disclosed in Takizaki, we do not sustain the rejection of
these claims, or their dependent claims, as being anticipated by Takizaki.
Obviousness
When rejecting the claims as being unpatentable over Takizaki and
Yoshino, the Examiner first relies on Takizaki as set forth in the anticipation
rejection, but states that "Takizaki does not explicitly disclose a charge-
coupled device." Final Act. 8. Although only claim 5 recites a "charge-
coupled device," the Examiner then alleges where Yoshino discloses the
5
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
recitations of each of claims 1-14 and 16-20. Id. at 8-16. The Examiner
then determines
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made ... to modify Takizaki
as suggested and taught by Yoshino in order to recognize the
shape, color or weight of food and control heating based upon
the shape, color or weight of food ( e.g., col 28, ln 20-50 of
Yoshino).
Id. at 16 ( emphasis omitted).
It is difficult to determine what, exactly, the Examiner relies on each
of the references to disclose. To the extent the Examiner relies on any
elements of Yoshino in combination with Takizaki to render obvious
independent claims 1 and 16, the rejection is not articulated with clarity and
is not supported by a rational underpinning because the Examiner's stated
reason for combining the reference teachings-"to recognize the shape,
color or weight of food and control heating based upon the shape, color or
weight of food"----does not appear relevant to the independent claims, which
do not require a charge-coupled device. We agree with Appellants that
"[t]he Examiner has not met the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103." Appeal Br. 7; see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
To the extent the Examiner relies on Yoshino to anticipate
independent claims 1 and 16, the rejection is not set forth with requisite
clarity. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362. Additionally, the Examiner appears to rely
on disclosures from various embodiments of Yoshino, and therefore has not
established clearly that the four comers of Yoshino disclose the elements of
claim 1 and 16 "arranged as in the claim." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369-71 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Reply Br. 7-8.
6
Appeal2017-006863
Application 13/747,847
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-14 and 16-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14 and 16-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7