11289652 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2013

11289652 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DEUG HEE LEE, HUNG MYONG CHO, BYUNG HWAN AHN, SOUNG BONG CHOI, and YOUNG SOO KIM ____________________ Appeal 2011-008235 Application 11/289,652 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008235 Application 11/289,652 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 11-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A composite washing system comprising: a drum dryer which dries laundry to be dried, and includes a drying drum adapted to receive the laundry, a hot air supply path adapted to guide a flow of hot air, a hot air supplier arranged in the hot air supply path to generate the hot air, and an air condenser adapted to condense the hot air; a cabinet dryer which is coupled to one side of the drum dryer, and is defined with a laundry receiving compartment, the cabinet dryer including a hot air inlet duct adapted to receive the hot air flowing through the hot air supply path; and a hot air supplying device which is arranged in the cabinet dryer to receive the hot air from the hot air inlet duct and to supply the received hot air to an inside of the laundry, wherein the hot air supply path includes: a first air supply duct which guides the hot air into the driving drum; a second air supply duct which is connected to the first air supply duct and the hot air inlet duct to guide the hot air generated from the hot air supplier into at least one of the first air supply duct and the hot air inlet duct; and a third air supply duct which guides air discharged from the driving drum to the air condenser, wherein a valve is arranged in the second air supply duct to guide the air flowing 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 8. There is no pending rejection of claims 6-8. Appeal 2011-008235 Application 11/289,652 3 through the second air supply duct toward the first air supply duct and/or the hot air inlet duct. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Diskin US 1,877,283 Sep. 13, 1932 Taylor Gayso Dhaemers US 4,103,433 US 4,819,341 US 5,546,678 Aug. 1, 1978 Apr. 11, 1989 Aug. 20, 1996 Johnson US 2004/0194339 A1 Oct. 7, 2004 Rejections Appellants request our review of the following rejections: Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayso, Taylor, and Johnson. Claims 9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayso, Taylor, Dhaemers, and Johnson. Claims 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gayso, Taylor, Dhaemers, Diskin, and Johnson. OPINION The Examiner found that Gayso as modified in view of Taylor lacks a hot air supply path comprising first, second, and third supply ducts as specified in claims 1 and 9, including a first air supply duct which guides hot air into the driving drum and a second air supply duct “connected to the first air supply duct and the hot air inlet duct” with a valve “arranged in the second air supply duct to guide the air flowing through the second air supply duct toward the first air supply duct and/or the hot air inlet duct.” See Ans. 12, 14. The Examiner found that Johnson teaches such an arrangement, and determined it would have been obvious to combine the first, second, and Appeal 2011-008235 Application 11/289,652 4 third duct structure and function of Johnson with the teachings of Gayso, “for the purpose of optimizing air flow in a drying machine such that energy expenditure is minimized.” Ans. 12-13, 14. For the reasons set forth on pages 12-13 of the Appeal Brief, Johnson does not cure the acknowledged deficiencies of Gayso and Taylor. In particular, Johnson discloses independent hot air systems for the tumble dryer 12 and cabinet dryer 14. App. Br. 13; Johnson, para. [0021]. Johnson does not disclose that the duct 66 (on which the Examiner reads the claimed second air supply duct) is connected to the rear duct 46 (on which the Examiner reads the first air supply duct) as called for in claims 1 and 9. Thus, it is not apparent, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how the Examiner proposes to combine the teachings of Johnson with those of Gayso and Taylor to arrive at a composite washing system having a hot air supply path comprising first, second, and third supply ducts as specified in claims 1 and 9, including a first air supply duct which guides hot air into the driving drum and a second air supply duct “connected to the first air supply duct and the hot air inlet duct” with a valve “arranged in the second air supply duct to guide the air flowing through the second air supply duct toward the first air supply duct and/or the hot air inlet duct.” The Examiner does not rely on Dhaemers or Diskin for any teaching that would make up for the deficiencies of Gayso, Taylor, and Johnson. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3- 5, 9, and 11-20. Appeal 2011-008235 Application 11/289,652 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 11-20 is reversed. REVERSED hh