BSH Hausgeräte GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2022

2021005089 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2022)

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. 16/310,827 12/18/2018 Jose Manuel Alonso Lopez 2016P01084WOUS 1033 46726 7590 02/22/2022 BSH Home Appliances Corporation 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 EXAMINER JONES, LOGAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2022 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 JOSE MANUEL ALONSO, JAVIER CORRAL RICALDE, JOSE SALVADOR OCHOA TORRES, CARLOS PELAYO ALONSO, and CRISTINA RUEDA SANUDO Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16, 18-31, and 33-44. See generally Appeal Br. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies BSH Hausgeräte GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 2 We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Gas Burner and Domestic Cooking Appliance.” Spec. 1 (emphasis omitted). Claims 16 and 30 are independent. See Appeal Br. 26-32 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claim 16, below, with emphasis added to a limitation addressed in our decision: 16. A gas burner for a household cooking appliance, said gas burner comprising: a first mixture-distribution chamber having a plurality of mixture-outlet openings; a second mixture-distribution chamber separate from the first mixture-distribution chamber, said second mixture- distribution chamber being fluidically connected to the mixture- outlet openings of the first mixture-distribution chamber such that, when the gas burner is in operation, a combustion- gas/primary-air mixture is conducted out from the first mixture- distribution chamber and a combustion-gas/primary-air mixture is conducted out from the second mixture-distribution chamber via the mixture-outlet openings for flame formation, and a connecting channel fluidically connecting the second mixture-distribution chamber to the mixture outlet openings of the first mixture-distribution chamber. Claims App. 26 (emphasis added, reference numerals omitted). Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Maughan US 5,488,942 Feb. 6, 1996 Paesani US 6,332,460 B1 Dec. 25, 2001 Kamal US 2006/0051718 A1 Mar. 9, 2006 Le Cordon Bleu CH 177,058 May 15, 1935 Nicora FR 461,634 Jan. 7, 1914 See Final Act. 3-16. REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 16, 18, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-40, 42, 44 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu 20, 35 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, Kamal 26, 41 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, Paesani 28, 43 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, Nicora See Final Act. 3-16. I. Rejection Based on Maughan and Le Cordon Bleu The Examiner rejects claims 16, 18, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36- 40, 42, and 44 as unpatentable over Maughan in view of Le Cordon Bleu. Final Act. 3. a. Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting independent claims 16 and 30, along with their dependent claims, the Examiner finds that Maughan discloses a gas burner for a household cooking appliance, citing Maughan’s Figure 4. Final Act. 3 (addressing independent claim 16); see also id. at 7 (addressing independent Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 4 claim 30); see also id. at 3-10 (addressing dependent claims 18, 19, 21-25, 27, 29, 33, 34, 36-40, 42, and 44). We reproduce Maughan’s Figure 4, below: Figure 4 “is a cross-sectional plan view of a [particular] embodiment of a gas burner” of Maughan’s invention. Maughan, 2:35-36. The Examiner finds that Maughan discloses “first mixture-distribution chamber” (140) having a plurality of mixture-outlet openings (122) and a “second mixture- distribution chamber” (138). Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Maughan does not disclose “a plurality of connecting channels fluidically connecting the second mixture-distribution chamber to the mixture-outlet openings of the first mixture-distribution chamber.” Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 5 To address this shortcoming, the Examiner relies on Le Cordon Bleu, and finds that Le Cordon Bleu teaches a “plurality of connecting channels fluidically connecting the second mixture-distribution chamber to the mixture-outlet openings,” referencing Le Cordon Bleu’s Figures 1-5. Final Act. 4-5. We reproduce Le Cordon Bleu’s Figures 1-5, below: Figures 1-5 depict an embodiment of Le Cordon Bleu’s invention. Le Cordon Bleu 1. Specifically, Figure 1 is an elevation view of a burner with tap and pilot, while Figures 2-4 show various views of a mixing chamber. See id. at 1-2. The Examiner explains that “[e]lements 15 are grooves that lead to the openings and are on the edge section of intermediate element 2.” Final Act. 4. In combining Le Cordon Bleu’s teachings with Maughan, the Examiner reasons that [I]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 6 a plurality of connecting channels fluidically connecting the second mixture-distribution chamber to the mixture-outlet openings, said connecting channels being embodied as a bore in the intermediate element or as a groove on an edge section of the intermediate element as is taught in Le Cordon Bleu, in the gas burner disclosed by Maughan. One would have been motivated to include a plurality of connecting channels fluidically connecting the second mixture- distribution chamber to the mixture-outlet openings, said connecting channels being embodied as a bore in the intermediate element or as a groove on an edge section of the intermediate element because Le Cordon Bleu states “This judicious arrangement of channels 15 and 18 and the means for adjusting the supply of air and gas give this dual operating burner the essential qualities for good and economical combustion, allowing the use of all kinds more or less heavy gases.” Therefore, including the channels taught by Le Cordon Bleu will improve the qualities for good and economical combustion in the burner of Maughan. Final Act. 5. b. Analysis Appellant presents two arguments that we find persuasive. First, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Le Cordon Bleu teaches channels that connect a second mixture-distribution chamber to the outlet openings of the first mixture distribution chamber. See Appeal Br. 15; see also id. at 16 (“Le Cordon Bleu also does not describe these features as alleged by the rejection”). Appellant is correct. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner finds that “Le Cordon Bleu teaches a plurality of connecting channels fluidically connecting the second mixture-distribution chamber to the mixture outlet- openings.” Final Act. 4. Although the Examiner cites to channels 15 as the Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 7 “plurality of connecting channels,” these channels do not connect a second mixture distribution chamber to the mixture outlet openings of the first mixture distribution chamber, as required by the claims. Rather than teach channels from a second mixture distribution chamber that connect to the fluid openings of the first mixture distribution chamber, as the claim requires, Le Cordon Bleu teaches two separate sets of outlet openings, specifically, outlet openings 15 and 18. See Le Cordon Bleu, Figs. 1, 3; see also id. at 2-3 (describing upper row of channels 18 and lower row of channels 15). We agree with Appellant that channels 15 and 18 “do not connect, but instead, are situated at intervals from each other and terminate at different locations.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). In other words, because Le Cordon Bleu teaches two “mixture-distribution chamber[s],” with each chamber having its own set of “outlet openings,” it does not teach that its second chamber is “fluidically connected . . . to the mixture outlet openings of the first mixture-distribution chamber,” as required by the claims. See Claims App. 26 (independent claim 16), 29 (independent claim 30). Second, Appellant argues that “the Office fails to provide any explanation of how the gas burner disclosed by Maughan would be modified in view of the teachings of the radial channels 15 of Le Cordon Bleu to include such features.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant’s second argument is also persuasive. We agree with Appellant that “the Office fails to adequately explain or articulate how the teachings of the radial channels 15 of Le Cordon Bleu allegedly would be combined with the teachings of the gas burner disclosed by Maughan.” Appeal Br. 20-21. The claims require a “first-mixing distribution chamber” Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 8 and a “second mixing-distribution chamber,” with a “connecting channel” that connects the second chamber to the “mixture-outlet openings” of the first chamber. Claims App. 26 (independent claim 16), 29 (independent claim 30). Upon reviewing the rejection, we do not see how Maughan’s “second mixing-distribution chamber” 138 would have been modified to include Le Cordon Bleu’s “channels” 15. See Maughan, Fig. 4; see also Le Cordon Bleu’s Fig. 2. c. Summary For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 18, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-40, 42, and 44 as unpatentable over Maughan in view of Le Cordon Bleu. II. Remaining Rejections The rejections of claims 20, 26, 28, 35, 41, and 43 as unpatentable over Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, and the other cited art inherit the same flawed findings discussed above. See Final Act. 10-16. For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of claims 20, 26, 28, 35, 41, and 43. Appeal 2021-005089 Application 16/310,827 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16, 18, 19, 21- 25, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-40, 42, 44 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu 16, 18, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-40, 42, 44 20, 35 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, Kamal 20, 35 26, 41 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, Paesani 26, 41 28, 43 103 Maughan, Le Cordon Bleu, Nicora 28, 43 Overall Outcome 16, 18-31, 33-44 REVERSED