Ex Parte Heidel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13879812 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
13/879,812 04/17/2013 Andreas Heidel 2010P03881WOUS 4816
46726 7590 01/31/2018
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
PARIHAR, PRADHUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HEIDEL, REINHARD HERING,
and BERND KRANZLE1
Appeal 2017-003628
Application 13/879,812
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 15 and 25 as
unpatentable over Steiner (EP 1277431, Jan. 22, 2003, as translated) in view
of Berends (EP 1967121, July 6, 2011, as translated) and of remaining
dependent claims 16-24 and 26-34 as unpatentable over these references
alone or in combination with an additional prior art reference. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 BSH Hausgerate GmbH is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003628
Application 13/879,812
Appellants claim a method for operating a water-conducting domestic
appliance (e.g., a dishwasher) with a circulating pump 15 and a water flow
diverter 9 as well as a facility 19 configured to control operation of the
appliance, the method comprising:
filling the appliance with a minimum quantity of filling water;
determining whether the diverter is malfunctioning with the facility;
performing a first true running check to check whether the minimum
quantity of water corresponds to a set point quantity of water required to
ensure true running of the circulating pump;
evaluating whether the circulating pump is running true; and
“if the facility determines that the water flow diverter is not
malfunctioning, then performing ... a refilling step for increasing the
minimum quantity of filling water” (claim 15, Fig. 1).
Appellants also claim a water-conducting domestic appliance
containing limitations corresponding to those described above including the
limitation “wherein if the facility determines that the water flow diverter is
not malfunctioning, the facility is configured to perform ... a refilling step
for increasing the minimum quantity of filling water” (claim 25).
A copy of representative claim 15, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
15. A method for operating a water-conducting domestic
appliance with a circulating pump and a water flow diverter
which is associated with the circulating pump and has at least
one control element configured for adjustment by a control
element motor for changing a direction of flow of a liquid
through the water flow diverter, and the water-conducting
domestic appliance including a facility configured to control
2
Appeal 2017-003628
Application 13/879,812
operation of the water-conducting domestic appliance, the
method comprising:
filling the water-conducting domestic appliance with a
minimum quantity of filling water to be circulated by the
circulating pump;
determining whether the water flow diverter is
malfunctioning with the facility by detecting a position of the at
least one control element with at least one sensor;
performing a first true running check to check whether
the minimum quantity of filling water corresponds at least to a
setpoint quantity of filling water required to ensure true running
of the circulating pump;
evaluating for the first true running check at least one
operational parameter of an electric motor driving the
circulating pump to ascertain whether the circulating pump is
running true; and
if the facility determines that the water flow diverter is
not malfunctioning, then performing a second true running
check or a refilling step for increasing the minimum quantity of
filling water.
Concerning the independent claim limitation quoted earlier, the
Examiner finds that Steiner discloses “performing a refilling step for
increasing the minimum quantity of filling water when the water flow
diverter is not malfunctioning (para 0017)” (Final Action 4). Based on this
finding, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
for the method for operating a water-conducting domestic
appliance of the present combination of Steiner and Berends to
determine whether the water flow diverter is malfunctioning
with the control facility [of Steiner] by detecting position of
[the diverter] control element and performing a refilling step for
increasing the minimum quantity of filling water when the
water flow diverter is not malfunctioning.
Id. at 4-5.
3
Appeal 2017-003628
Application 13/879,812
Appellants argue:
Steiner cannot teach that this feature [i.e., the refilling feature of
claims 15 and 25] occurs “if the facility determines that the
water flow diverter is not malfunctioning,” because the control
unit 20 [of Steiner] cited for the “facility” is not taught as being
associated with the [refilling] disclosure of [Steiner] paragraph
[0017],
App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner states that Steiner “does teach a facility
(para 0028 and 0033) which is taught by the control” (Ans. 2) and that
“Steiner teaches . . . what happens when there is no malfunction (para 0017)
as when more fluid is needed for the cycle, the adjustment takes place, thus
teaching a refilling step which will increase the minimum quantity of filling
water” {id.).
Appellants reply with the following argument:
[The Examiner’s] response misses the point. Appellants have
not asserted that Steiner does not teach a “facility” at all.
Rather, Appellants have argued that the component of Steiner
relied upon for the “facility” is not involved in the function of
Steiner that is cited against the rejected claim feature [i.e., the
refilling feature] that includes the “facility.” Thus, the response
in the Examiner’s Answer does not resolve the issues of the
rejection [concerning the refilling feature of the independent
claims].
Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ argument has convincing merit. As correctly indicated by
Appellants, the paragraphs of Steiner cited by the Examiner regarding a
control facility (i.e., Steiner ]fl[ 28 and 33) and a refilling step (i.e., Steiner
^ 17) contain no teaching that associates the facility with the refilling step.
Moreover, the Examiner does not cite any other disclosure in Steiner as
supporting the previously quoted conclusion that it would have been obvious
4
Appeal 2017-003628
Application 13/879,812
to use Steiner’s control facility to determine whether the diverter is not
malfunctioning and, if not malfunctioning, then performing a refilling step.
For this reason, the Examiner fails to provide the record with “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Under these circumstances, we will not sustain the § 103 rejections of
the independent claims and of the claims depending therefrom.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 15-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
5