Ex Parte Anton Falcon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 19, 2018

13643128 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/643, 128 10/24/2012 46726 7590 06/21/2018 BSH Home Appliances Corporation 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel Anton Falcon 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. 2009P03256WOUS 8635 EXAMINER CHEN,KUANGYUE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2018 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 DANIEL ANTON FALCON, JOSE IGNACIO AR TI GAS MAESTRE, LUIS ANGEL BARRAGAN PEREZ, CARLOS BERNAL RUIZ, JOSE MIGUEL BURDIO PINILLA, CLAUDIO CARRETERO CHAMARRO, JOSE MARIA DE LA CUERDA ORTIN, JOSE-RAMON GARCIA JIMENEZ, PABLO JESUS HERNANDEZ BLASCO, OSCAR JIMENEZ NA V ASCUES, SERGIO LLORENTE GIL, OSCAR LUCIA GIL, ARTURO MEDIANO HEREDIA, IGNACIO MILLAN SERRANO, FERNANDO MONTERDE AZNAR, DANIEL MOROS SANZ, DENIS NAVARRO TABERNERO, JOSE JOAQUIN P ARICIO AZCONA, DIEGO PUY AL PUENTE, and ISIDRO URRIZA P ARROQUE Appeal2016-003653 Application 13/643,128 1 Technology Center 3700 Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify BSH Hausgerate GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2016-003653 Application 13/643, 128 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Daniel Anton Falcon et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--16 and 19-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claim 14 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below. 14. A cooktop apparatus, comprising: a switching unit having a switching unit switch, the switching unit interpreting and establishing a current supply supplying a current generated from a mains voltage during an operating process, a first switch receiving the current, the first switch being separate from the switching unit switch, a controller which controls the switching unit during the operating process such that the switching unit interrupts the current during a first time interval which has a duration of less than half a period of the mains voltage, with the controller causing the current to be established during the operating process immediately before and immediately after the first time interval and causing the first switch to switch during the first time interval at a starting point and an end point, with the starting point and the end point located within the first time interval, wherein the first time interval has a duration of about eight milliseconds. Appeal Br. 10, Claims App. 2 Appeal2016-003653 Application 13/643, 128 Rejections Appellants seek review of the following rejections, each of which was made by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a): I. Claims 14--16, 19-24, and 26 are rejected as unpatentable over Larson, 2 Rilly, 3 and Barritt; 4 II. Claim 15 is rejected as unpatentable over Larson, Rilly, Barritt, and Wang; 5 and III. Claim 25 is rejected as unpatentable over Larson, Rilly, Barritt, and Liu. 6 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner concludes that the combination of Larson, Rilly, and Barritt would have rendered the subject matter of claims 14--16, 19-24, and 26 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 3-5. With respect to claim 14, the Examiner finds that Larson discloses the elements of the claim, "except for the first switch being separate from the switching unit switch, and the first time interval ha[ ving] a duration of about eight milliseconds." Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Barritt teaches the switch limitation and a first time interval of 1.35 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,951,997 B2, issued October 4, 2005. 3 DE3610196 (Al), published October 1, 1987. 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,648,008, issued July 15, 1997. 5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0289489 Al, published December 28, 2006. 6 U.S. Patent No. 7,355,152 B2, issued April 8, 2008. 3 Appeal2016-003653 Application 13/643, 128 milliseconds. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Larson et al. in view of Rilly and Barritt ... [such that] the first time interval has an [sic] duration of about eight milliseconds to optimum [sic] the time interval duration, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 4--5 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated modify the time interval taught by Barritt. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Barritt teaches that its control subsystem performs a pan check during the first 1.35 ms of a powerline half cycle of operation. Id. (referring to Barritt, 11 :7-23). Barritt explains that each powerline half cycle has a time duration of about 8.33 ms. Id. Thus, modifying Barritt's 1.35 ms to 8 ms would result in constant pan checks, which is not desirable in Barritt's system because the pan check would run for essentially all of the powerline half cycle. Id. The Examiner repeats the same findings in response to Appellants' argument, relying upon the position that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Ans. 9 ( citation omitted). "[T]he discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). There is, however, an exception to the conclusion of obviousness when "the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable." Id. 4 Appeal2016-003653 Application 13/643, 128 Based on the record before us, the Examiner fails to explain how or why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized-based on Larson, Rilly, or Barritt, or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention-that the time interval when the switching unit interrupts the current is a result-effective variable, and specifically what property or quantity is a function of the time interval. Accordingly, the Examiner's finding that the time interval is a result- effective variable, and that increasing the time interval somehow optimizes a particular property or quantity, is not supported on the record. Additionally, Barritt discloses that the purpose of the time interval is to determine whether a proper pan is present and take certain identified action as a result of that determination. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would expand that time interval to account for essentially the entirety of Barritt's powerline half cycle, resulting in near constant pan checks. If anything, this modification appears to be disadvantageous to a system such as Barritt's. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14--16, 19-24, and 26. Rejections II and III Claims 15 and 25 depend from claim 14. In the context of rejecting claims 15 and 25, the Examiner relies upon the findings discussed above regarding Larson, Rilly, and Barritt, and does not rely upon Wang or Liu as teaching or suggesting the 8 ms time interval recited in claim 14. Ans. 7-9. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 14, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 15 and 25. 5 Appeal2016-003653 Application 13/643, 128 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--16 and 19-26. REVERSED 6