Ex Parte Jeanneteau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

12994700 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/994,700 07/21/2011
116 7590 12/26/2018
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Laurent J eanneteau
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.
AEG-54403 5188
EXAMINER
CALVETTI, FREDERICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
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):
patdocket@peame.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENT JEANNETEAU, THIBAUT RIGOLLE,
ALEX VIROLI, MASSIMO ZANGOLI, ULRICH HAUTLE,
and KLAUS SCHLOTTERER-FRATOIANNA
Appeal2018-002663 1
Application 12/994,700
Technology Center 3700
Before: JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Appeal Brief indicates that Electrolux Home Products Corporation
N.V. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-002663
Application 12/994,700
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 29-43 and 46-48. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosure relates to an assembly unit for an induction hob
comprising first and second carrying elements for carrying the circuits
and/or devices for supplying the induction element. Spec. ,r,r 1-2, 9. Claims
29 and 46 are independent. Claim 29, reproduced below with paragraph
indentation added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
29. An assembly unit for an induction hob with at least one
induction element, comprising:
a first carrying element and a second carrying element
respectively carrying a first set and a second set of devices that
respectively supply a first and a second induction element, the
first and second carrying elements each comprising a base area,
the base area comprising sides protruding upward from the base
area,
a first one of the sides comprising a protrusion extending
away from the base area,
a second one of the sides being positioned opposite the
first side and comprising a recess extending into the base area,
a third one of the sides extending between an
edge of the first side and an edge of the second side and
comprising a protrusion and a recess,
2 Claims 1-28 have been cancelled, and claims 44 and 45 are withdrawn.
Appeal Br. 13, 16 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2018-002663
Application 12/994,700
wherein the recess and the protrusion of the third side of
the first carrying element are respectively coupled to the
protrusion and the recess of the third side of the second carrying
element.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App).
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER3
Saylor
Flynn
Khoury
Baier
Kaizik
us 5,614,292
us 5,637,247
US 6,369,445 Bl
WO 2006/032292 Al
WO 2008/058614 Al
REJECTION
Mar. 25, 1997
June 10, 1997
Apr. 9, 2002
Mar. 30, 2006
May 22, 2008
Claims 29-43 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kaizik and any of Baier, Saylor, Flynn, or Khoury.
OPINION
Claims 29-43
The Examiner relies on Kaizik to teach many of the elements required
by claim 29, including a base area comprising sides protruding upward
therefrom. Non-Final Act. 4--5. However, the Examiner finds that Kaizik
does not disclose that any of the sides includes a protrusion or recess as
recited. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that each of Baier, Saylor, Flynn, and
Khoury discloses structure that remedies this deficiency in Kaizik, and the
3 Any citation to the text of Kaizik and Baier refers to English-language
machine-translations of these references provided by the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2018-002663
Application 12/994,700
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious "to modify the shape of
sides to facilitate connection of units, modules, inductors, cooking zones,
supports or hobs in Kaizik and connect elements and devices thereof as
taught by Baier using spring clips and/or by Saylor/Flynn/Khoury using
recess[ es] and projection[ s] to facilitate connection." Id. at 6 ( emphasis
added).
Appellants argue that Kaizik describes a single hob, and it is not
connectable with other hobs. See Appeal Br. 6. Instead, Appellants
contend, Kaizik discloses various inductor elements that are connected to
form one or more cooking zones within the hob. See id. at 7. Appellants
further contend that the single hob disclosed by Kaizik amounts to disclosure
of a lone carrying element, and, therefore, the Examiner erred in finding that
Kaizik discloses first and second carrying elements as recited in claim 29.
Based on this alleged error in the Examiner's findings, Appellants criticize
the Examiner's reasoning for combining the connecting structure of
Baier/Saylor/Flynn/Khoury with the hob structure of Kaizik as "circular"
and assert that the Examiner has not identified any problem for which
providing the recited protrusion and recess connecting structure is a solution.
Id. at 9-10.
In response, the Examiner finds that Kaizik discloses multiple
interconnectable hobs, and the Examiner quotes extensively from pages 2
and 3 of Kaizik in support of this finding. Ans. 15-17. The Examiner then
concludes, "[a]s noted in the rejection and above teachings of Kaizik, the
reference is directed to multiple hobs, cooking zones and inductors that are
connected together or applicably so [teaches] connected zones or hobs (page
1 line 20, page 4 line 34---6)." Id. at 17.
4
Appeal 2018-002663
Application 12/994,700
Appellants argue that the Examiner's findings conflate inductors with
carrying elements, and the language of claim 29 distinguishes these two
components. Reply Br. 3. In light of this, Appellants conclude, Kaizik
"omits a critical intermediate feature that is recited in the claims, namely: the
'carrying elements."' Id.
The Examiner's finding that Kaizik discloses multiple hobs is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The portions of Kaizik
(pages 2--4) cited by the Examiner support, instead, Appellants' contention
that Kaizik is directed to arranging multiple inductors and cooking zones on
a single hob. See, e.g., Kaizik p. 2 ("The cooking zone has a plurality of
inductors ... As will be explained in more detail below, two or even more of
these cooking zones next to each other or parallel to each other in an
induction hob [ are provided] according to the invention."). Thus, the
Examiner's rationale for modifying the structure of Kaizik "to facilitate
connection" is based on an unsupported finding of fact, specifically, that
Kaizik discloses the use of multiple interconnected hobs. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 29, and claims 30--43 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Kaizik in combination with any of Baier,
Saylor, Flynn, and Khoury.
Claims 46-48
Independent claim 46 recites substantially similar features to those
discussed above regarding claim 29 (see Appeal Br. 13, 16 (Claims App.)),
and we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 46, and claims 4 7 and
48 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Kaizik in combination with
any of Baier, Saylor, Flynn, and Khoury.
5
Appeal 2018-002663
Application 12/994,700
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 29--43 and 46--48 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6