Ex Parte Scotto D

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

14372347 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/372,347 07/15/2014 Adriano Scotto D'Apollonia
116 7590 02/27/2019
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
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-52984 1127
EXAMINER
COHEN, YARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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 ADRIANO SCOTO D' APOLLONIA 1
Appeal2018-005749
Application 14/372,347
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6, 8 through 10, and 12
through 18, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
Claims 2, 7, and 11 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Electrolux Home
Products. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005749
Application 14/372,347
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a display and control element for a
household appliance. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
A display and control element for a household appliance
compnsmg:
a transparent input element;
a display element mounted behind the input element; and
a marker element which divides the area of the
transparent input element into at least one touchscreen region
through which the display element is visible, and at least one
switching region in which the display element is not visible,
wherein the marker element comprises a blind located at
the rear side of the input element which covers the switching
region and thereby causes a portion of the display element
located behind the blind to not be visible, and
wherein the blind is overlaying the portion of the display
element.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 6, 8, and 14 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Krische (US
2011/0261518 Al). Final Act. 3-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Krische and Allemand (US
2008/0143906 Al). Final Act. 9-11.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
October 31, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 15, 2018, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 4, 2017, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 15, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-005749
Application 14/372,347
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejections.
Appellant argues that Krische does not teach the marker element with
a blind as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-12. Specifically, Appellant argues
that Krische does not teach the marker element has a blind that causes a
portion of the display to not be visible as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner in the Final Rejection, relies upon Krische Figure 2 and
finds that element 12 corresponds to display. Final Act. 5. Further, in the
Final Rejection the Examiner relies upon Krische Figure 1, and Figure 4c
and finds that the housing, item 11 corresponds to the marker element and
the word "Hot" in Figure 3 corresponds to the claimed blind. Final Act 6.
In the response to arguments section of the Answer, the Examiner changes
which elements of Krische are mapped to each claim element. In the
Answer, the Examiner equates the claimed display with the portion of the
microwave oven behind the display 12 in Krische. Answer 5. Further, the
Examiner equates the window pane 21 (Fig. 4) and housing 11 (Fig. 1)
Krische with the claimed marker element. Answer 5. With respect to the
blind which causes a portion of the display element behind the blind to not
be visible the examiner states:
The portion of the housing 11 /window pane 21 of
Krische located behind the display 12 (for instance, in back of
the detection means 17) corresponds to the claimed blind. The
back of the detection means 1 7 covers the circuitry associated
with detection means 17 and causes a part of the back portion of
3
Appeal2018-005749
Application 14/372,347
microwave oven 10 located behind the housing 10/window
pane 21 to not be visible.
Answer 5.
We disagree with the Examiner's findings. Whether the claimed
display is met by Krische's display 12, or by the portion of the microwave
oven behind the display 12, we do not find that Krische in the text or figures,
show or suggests that the housing or window pane 21, cause a portion of the
display element to not be visible. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner
has shown that the limitations if independent claim 1 are taught or obvious
over Krische.
Independent claims 4, 17, and 18 similarly recite limitations directed
to a marker, blind or cover, causing a portion of the display to not be visible.
The Examiner's findings concerning these features are similar to those
discussed above. Answer 7, 9, and 10. Thus, we similarly do not find that
the Examiner has shown that the limitations of independent claims 4, 17, and
18 are taught or obvious over Krische.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, 17, and 18 or dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14
through 16 similarly rejected.
The Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 rely
upon the teachings of Krische to teach the limitations of dependent claims 1
and 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9,
10, 12, and 13 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 4
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through
6, 8 through 10, and 12 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2018-005749
Application 14/372,347
REVERSED
5