Ex Parte Blumenthal et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2012

11059085 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER BLUMENTHAL, BERNWARD REINKER, and
BERND STIZL
____________

Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and JEREMY M.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Blumenthal et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19-26, 28-31, and 33-40.
Claims 1-18 and 32 have been cancelled. Claim 27 is objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a control unit for an electrical
domestic appliance including a control knob which is retained magnetically
on a plate of the control unit while being laterally displaceable on the plate
to select different operating functions. Spec. 1. Claims 19, 36, 37, and 39
are independent. Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative:
19. A control unit for an electrical domestic appliance
for setting operating functions and parameters, comprising:
a plate and at least one control knob fixed magnetically
on said plate in an initial position;
said control knob being configured for lateral movement
on said plate away from said initial position for selecting an
operating function, said control knob being movable on said
plate in a first lateral movement from said initial position to a
first away position for selecting thereby one operating function
and subsequently being movable in a return movement from
said first away position to said initial position and said control
knob being movable on said plate in a second lateral movement
from said initial position to a second away position for selecting
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

3
thereby another operating function and subsequently being
movable in a return movement from said second away position
to said initial position with the path of out and back movement
of said control knob between said initial position and said first
away position being different than the path of out and back
movement of said control knob between said initial position and
said second away position;
said control knob being configured for rotation about its
axis on said plate for setting an operating parameter, including
setting a specific heating stage for said cooking plate;
said control knob including one of at least one permanent
magnet and a ferromagnetic element;
said control knob being fixed magnetically on said plate
by a magnetic array including a plurality of fixed magnets
which exert magnetic pulling power on said permanent magnet
and/or said ferromagnetic element;
said magnetic array pulling power enables said lateral
and rotating movement of said control knob; and
a signaling unit, said signaling unit providing at least one
of an optical signal and an acoustical signal that indicates a
respective position of said control knob when a given one of an
operating function has been selected or when a given one of an
operating parameter has been set by said control knob.

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 19-23, 29-31, 33, 34, 37, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia (US 6,153,837; iss. Nov.
28, 2000), Knappe (US 6,498,326 B1; iss. Dec. 24, 2002), and Genbauffe
(US 3,692,239; iss. Sep. 19, 1972).
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

4
2. Claims 19-26, 28-31, 33-36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platt (US 5,920,131; iss. Jul. 6, 1999),
Knappe, and Genbauffe.

OPINION
Garcia/Knappe/Genbauffe – Claims 19-23, 29-31, 33, and 34
Garcia discloses a control unit including a control knob for setting
operating functions and operating parameters of an electrical appliance. Col.
1, ll. 7-11. The Examiner determined that Garcia discloses the control unit
of claim 19, but fails to disclose both the lateral movement of the control
knob on the plate “with the path of out and back movement of said control
knob between said initial position and said first away position being
different than the path of out and back movement of said control knob
between said initial position and said second away position” (the lateral
displacement configuration) and the signaling unit recited in claim 19. Ans.
3-4.
Instead, the Examiner relies on Knappe as disclosing the lateral
displacement configuration “with the path of out and back movement of said
control knob between said initial position and said first away position (in
direction 28) being different than the path of out and back movement of said
control knob between said initial position and said second away position (in
direction 29).” Ans. 4. Appellants’ sole contention regarding the rejection
of claim 19 is directed to the Examiner’s characterization of Knappe.
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

5
Appellants argue that the Examiner:
ignores the limitation in claim 19 of the present application that
the path of out and back movement of the control knob between
the initial position and the first away position is different than
the path of out and back movement of the control knob between
the initial position and the second away position.
App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue that “Knappe '326 would not provide
a person of ordinary skill in the art with any information about a possible
solution concerning lateral movements in two different out and back lateral
movement paths, such as that of the control knob.” Id.
However, Knappe provides “a lateral guide only allowing a
displacement in two antiparallel directions 28 and 29 parallel to the plane
22.” Col. 7, ll. 48-50. The Examiner indicates that Knappe discloses first
and second lateral movements of the control knob with “the path of out and
back movement of said control knob between said initial position and said
first away position (in direction 28) being different than the path of out and
back movement of said control knob between said initial position and said
second away position ([in direction] 29).” Ans. 9. The disclosure of
Knappe further supports this finding, noting that “[t]he centrally positioned,
square magnet 16 essentially exerts a holding and centering function . . .
onto the magnet 11 of the control element 5” with the control element being
slid in either direction 28 or direction 29 from the holding position. Col. 7,
ll. 15-18.
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

6
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that displacement of
the control element (5) in Knappe in the two directions (28, 29) provides the
two different paths for out and back movement of the control element
between an initial position and the away positions recited in claim 19.
Claims 20-23, 29-31, 33, and 34 have not been argued separately. For the
above reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 and
dependent claims 20-23, 29-31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe.

Garcia/Knappe/Genbauffe – Claims 37 and 38
Claim 37 includes features similar to those found in claim 19, with the
addition of the control knob “defining a rotational axis generally
perpendicular with respect to said control support surface” and “maintaining
said rotational axis in generally perpendicular alignment with said control
support surface for selecting an operating function.” The Examiner relies on
Garcia as disclosing the general features of the control knob and relies on
Knappe as disclosing the lateral displacement configuration of the control
knob. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious “to utilize in Garcia [a] control knob being configured for lateral
movement on said plate . . . as taught by Knappe in order to select and
control the operating function.” Ans. 5. The rejection of claim 37 does not
include any discussion of the rotational axis of the control knob in Garcia
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

7
being maintained “in generally perpendicular alignment with said control
support surface for selecting an operating function,” as required by claim 37.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any
prima facie conclusion of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the articulation of the reason(s) why
the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Court in KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. The Federal
Circuit has stated that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Garcia discloses “tilting or pushing the control knob 13 out of the
central initial position along the axis 17 into the four selection positions” and
that “[t]he control knob can then be turned in these selection positions” to
control an operating function. Col. 4, ll. 54-58. The tilted control knob in
Garcia provides an angled orientation of the control knob axis relative to the
cooktop surface to control an operating function, not the “perpendicular
alignment” of the rotational axis required by claim 37. Knappe does not
further define a rotational axis orientation because the control knob in
Knappe is not rotated about an axis to control an operating function.
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

8
The rejection fails to articulate why one skilled in the art would
modify the control knob in Garcia to include the “perpendicular alignment”
found in claim 37. Although the rejection addresses why the control knob of
Garcia would be modified to include lateral displacement, it is silent
regarding any reasoning why Garcia would be modified to include the
“perpendicular alignment” found in claim 37.
Because the rejection presents no reason for including the
perpendicular alignment recited in claim 37, the Examiner has not provided
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we cannot find that a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established. For this reason, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 37 and dependent claim 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe.

Garcia/Knappe/Genbauffe – Claim 40
Claim 40 depends from claim 19 and additionally recites a central
magnet and crown magnets that “magnetically retain said control knob in
said respective one of said first and second away positions while said control
knob is rotated about its axis on said plate for setting an operating
parameter.” The Examiner determined that Knappe discloses crown
magnets (17, 18, 19, 20) that “magnetically retain the control knob in the
respective one of the first and second away positions (figures 1 and 2).”
Ans. 10.
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

9
In response, Appellants argue:
Knappe '326 not only fails to retain its control knob (5) in either
of the “first away position” and the “second away position” but,
in fact, Knappe '326 expressly discloses that its control knob (5)
is returned automatically from the respective “first away
position” and the “second away position” to the central position
without being retained in any manner at the respective “first
away position” and the “second away position,” let alone being
retained via a magnetic retention as recited in claim 40 of the
present application.
Reply Br. 9. We agree.
Knappe specifically discloses the repulsion provided by the magnets
(17, 18, 19, 20), stating: “[t]he further rectangular magnets 17 to 20 arranged
around the central magnet 16 assist the centring function, in that the plate-
facing north poles act in centring pairwise symmetrical repelling manner on
the north pole of the control element magnet 11.” Col. 7, ll. 20-24. The
crown magnets of Knappe do not magnetically retain the control knob in the
first and second away positions as suggested by the Examiner. As such, the
Examiner’s modification of Garcia in view of the magnets (17, 18, 19, 20) of
Knappe would not result in “magnetically retain[ing] said control knob in
said respective one of said first and second away positions” as required by
claim 40 because the magnets (17, 18, 19, 20) of Knappe repel the control
knob instead of retaining the control knob. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe.

Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

10
Platt/Knappe/Genbauffe – Claims 19-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 39
Platt discloses a cooking field including a glass ceramic plate and
“several operating members 1, with which the individual heating means can
be manually controlled independently of one another, e.g. switched on and
off, as well as being set in substantially continuous manner to different
operating powers.” Col. 4, ll. 60-64. The operating members are fixed to
the plate in Platt by magnetic retention.
In the rejection of claims 19, 36, and 39, the Examiner acknowledges
that “Platt does not disclose said control knob being configured for lateral
movement on said plate away from said initial position.” Ans. 6. Instead,
the Examiner cites Knappe as “disclos[ing] a control knob (5) being
configured for lateral movement on said plate away from said initial
position” and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Platt to include the lateral displacement
arrangement of Knappe “in order to select and control the operating
function.” Ans. 7-8.
Appellants argue similar features regarding the patentability of
independent claims 19, 36, and 39. Appellants assert that “[t]he Platt et al
'131 patent teaches an arrangement for controlling electrically controllable
appliances including four knobs, each associated with a specific cooking
plate on the cooktop” and “[t]he knobs of Platt et al '131 are each
magnetically attracted to a magnetic arrangement below the cooktop and are
configured for rotational movement only.” App. Br. 27. Appellants argue
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

11
that there would be no reason to turn to a “prior art reference for a teaching
concerning lateral movement of a control knob for the reason that none of
the control knobs of Platt et al '131 are laterally movable.” App. Br. 25. We
disagree.
Although Platt may disclose control knobs being maintained in fixed
positions, Platt also states:
[n]evertheless the toggle 1 can be raised manually and without a
tool by applying a correspondingly high force out of its
operating position and axially from the switch shield or plate 4
or can be displaced from its centered position with respect to
the ring arrangement 5, 7 radially along the plate.
Col. 6, ll. 22-27. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because the
control knobs in Platt are not mechanically fixed to the cooktop. Instead, the
control knobs in Platt are fixed to the cooktop magnetically (similar to both
Knappe and the claimed arrangement) and are displaceable when an
appropriate amount of force is applied.
Appellants further argue that “Platt et al '131 specifically relies upon
each control knob remaining in a fixed position without being laterally
displaced so that the control knob can interact with the sensors located
below the plate or cooktop at that location.” App. Br. 25. However, the
combination of Platt, Knappe, and Genbauffe would include a laterally
displaceable control knob that would be aligned with a specific sensor for a
burner when laterally displaced to operate the burner. Appellants’ statement
regarding the control knobs being fixed in order to interact with the sensor is
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

12
not persuasive because the control knobs in Platt are removable as explained
above. Knappe explains that “the area covered by the toggle 1 . . . [on] the
plate 4 is free from openings, because no transmission member or switch
shaft is required for the signal transmission.” Col. 6, ll. 4-7. Thus, the
control knob (toggle) in Platt can be moved without disturbing any
connection between the control knob and the sensor. When the control knob
is returned to an operating position, the control knob can interact with the
sensors located below the plate at that location.
Additionally, in response to the rejection of claims 19 and 39,
Appellants again argue that Knappe does not disclose a control knob that is
displaceable in two different lateral out and back movement paths. App. Br.
22 and 26. We disagree for the reasons set forth above regarding the
rejection of claim 19 based on Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe.
In view of the above, we do not see why one skilled in the art would
not arrive at the claimed arrangement based on the combination of Platt,
Knappe, and Genbauffe. Appellants have not made a compelling argument
regarding why one skilled in the art would not arrive at the claimed
arrangement based on the combination of Platt, Knappe, and Genbauffe
explained by the Examiner.
Claims 20-26, 28-31, and 33-35 depend from claim 19 and have not
been argued separately. For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 19, 20-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Platt, Knappe, and Genbauffe.
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

13

Platt/Knappe/Genbauffe – Claim 40
In the rejection of claim 40 based on Platt, Knappe, and Genbauffe,
the Examiner does not clearly address the central magnet and the crown
magnets recited in claim 40. At best, it is unclear whether the Examiner has
applied the same characterization of claim 40 discussed above in the
rejection based on Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe (i.e., considering magnets
(17, 18, 19, 20) of Knappe to be the claimed crown magnets). We disagree
with this characterization of Knappe because, as explained above regarding
the rejection based on Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe, the crown magnets of
Knappe do not magnetically retain the control knob in the first and second
away positions as suggested by the Examiner.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 40 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platt, Knappe, and Genbauffe.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 19-23, 29-31, 33, and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia, Knappe, and
Genbauffe.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 37, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia, Knappe, and Genbauffe.
Appeal 2010-009889
Application 11/059,085

14
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 19-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Platt, Knappe, and
Genbauffe.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Platt, Knappe, and Genbauffe.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls