Ex Parte Cho

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12307522 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/307,522 11120/2009
127226 7590 05/03/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Han Ki Cho
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.
0465-2105PUS 1 3531
EXAMINER
RIVERA-CORDERO, ARLYN I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAN KI CHO
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention is directed to a method of cleaning a tub of a
drum-type washer. App. Br. 5. Claim 11 is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal and is reproduced below:
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
11. A tub cleaning method of a drum-type washer
compnsmg:
a water storing step in which washing water flows into a
tub to be stored in the tub;
a steeping step in which steam is supplied into the tub
and a drum; and
a cleaning step in which the washing water in the tub
circulates along an entire inner peripheral surface of the tub by
controlling a rotational velocity of the drum to clean the entire
inner peripheral surface of the tub.
The Examiner maintained from the Examiner's Final Action:
I. Claims 11-14, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim (US 2006/0151005 Al, published July 13, 2006).
II. Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim and Steinhoff (DE 197 51 028 Al, published May 20, 1999).
III. Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim and Cho (\VO 2007/073012 Al, published June 28, 2007).
IV. Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim, Jennings (US 2,887 ,862, issued May 26, 1959) and Sechelmann
(US 7,585,374 B2, issued September 8, 2009).
V. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim and Tobita (US 4,231,130, issued November 4, 1980).
2
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
OPINION
Prior Art Rejections
Rejections I and IV (Claim 11)1
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (Rejections I and IV) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
add the following for emphasis.
Independent claim 11 is directed to a method of cleaning the entire
inner peripheral surface of a tub of a drum-type washer.
The Examiner found Kim teaches a method for cleaning a drum
(washing tub 12) mounted in a water tub 11 of a washing machine that
differs from the claimed invention in that Kim does not explicitly teach
cleaning the entire inner peripheral surface of the water tub 11. Final Act. 4;
Kim Figure 1, Abstract, i-fi-129, 30. The Examiner found one skilled in the
art would have reasonably expected the entire inner peripheral surface of the
water tub 11 to be cleaned by Kim's process because Kim teaches
generating a strong flow of the water between the exterior of the drum and
the interior of the water tub to increase the cleaning force. Final Act. 4; Kim
i135.
Appellant argues Kim's method is designed to wash an outer surface
of the drum (washing tub) 12 and is not concerned with cleaning of the
1 For Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments only for independent claim
11 and relies on these arguments in addressing claims 12-14, 17 and 18.
App. Br. 7, 11. Further, Appellant relies on the arguments presented when
discussing claim 11 in addressing the separate rejection of claim19
(Rejection IV). Id. at 12-13. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to claim
11 for these rejections. Claims 12-14 and 17-19 will stand or fall with
claim 11.
3
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
water tub 11. App. Br. 7. According to Appellant, there is nothing in Kim
to suggest that the speed of rotation of Kim's drum would result in cleaning
the entire inner surface of the water tub 11 as claimed. Id. at Br. 9-10.
We are unpersuaded by this argument. It is well settled that a
reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). As noted by the Examiner, Kim discloses supplying water to the
water tub (0029) and rotating the drum at a relatively high rotating speed to
generate a strong current of flow to clean the drum. Ans. 8; Kim i-fi-129-30.
Moreover, Kim discloses using steam to heat the water stored in the water
tub to activate the cleaning or disinfecting activity of the detergent or the
disinfectant in the water. Kim i130. Thus, the Examiner provided a
reasonable basis to find that Kim's process of cleaning the outer surface of a
drum by rotating the drum at relatively high rotating speed also cleans the
entire inner periphery of the water tub by drawing the water along the entire
inner periphery of the water tub during rotation of the drum from Kim's
disclosure.
Although Appellant asserts the strong current flow in Kim is
understood to be relative to the weak current flow of the conventional art
where the low speeds of rotation provided weak forces that act on the
contaminants on the washing tub, Appellant directs us to no portion of Kim
or any other evidence in support of this assertion. App. Br. 9. Further,
Appellant's assertion is contrary to Kim's express disclosure of rotating the
drum at relatively high rotating speed. Kim i130. Therefore, Appellant has
not adequately explained why Kim's process of cleaning the outer surface of
4
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
a drum would not have cleaned the entire inner periphery of a water tub as
required by the subject matter of independent claim 11.
Appellant additionally argues Kim is tilted on an axis and there is no
indication that the entire inner peripheral surface of the water tub would be
impacted with water to achieve cleaning based on the allegedly strong
current flow of Kim. App. Br. 9.
We also find this argument unavailing. As noted by the Examiner,
Appellant's invention contemplates cleaning of tilt-type, drum-type washers.
Ans. 9; Spec. i-f 118. In addition, Appellant's claim 11 is not limited to any
specific type of drum/tub washer.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
11-14 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
Rejection II (Claim 15)
Claim 15 requires repeated forward and backward rotation of the
drum in the cleaning step.
The Examiner found Kim does not disclose the feature of claim 15.
Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner found Steinhoff teaches as
advantageous to rotate the drum in different directions to better distribute the
water during the cleaning of a washing machine. Final Act. 7; Steinhoff 1 (i-f
8). The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the teaching of Kim by rotating the drum in
different directions (forward and backward directions) as taught by
Steinhoff, to enhance removal of contaminants or residues. Final Act. 7.
5
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
Appellant argues modifying Kim so that the drum reverses direction
during the cleaning step would be counterintuitive to providing the strong
current flow as the water would be constantly accelerating and decelerating
in different directions. App. Br. 11.
Appellant's argument is premised on bodily incorporation and does
not focus on the Examiner's reasons for combining the cited art. Final Act.
7. It is well established that the obviousness inquiry does not ask "whether
the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed
inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."
In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (stating "[t]he test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"). Although
Appellant asserts the modification would be counterintuitive to providing the
strong current flow disclosed by Kim, Appellant directs us to no evidence in
support of this assertion. App. Br. 11. Appellant does not adequately
explain why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of adapting
the method of Kim to incorporate Steinhoff' s step of rotating the drum in
different directions (forward and backward directions) to better distribute the
water for cleaning of the tub. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re
Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's prior art rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
6
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
Rejection III (Claim 16) and Rejection V (Claim 20)
Claim 16 requires a clothes amount sensing step for sensing whether
laundry articles are loaded in the drum. Claim 20 requires supplying the
washing water in the water storing step to a level higher than a preset water
level in a rinsing operation.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a statement of these
rejections. Final Act. 7-9.
We have considered Appellant's arguments for these rejections (App.
Br. 12-14) but find no error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness.
With respect to claim 16, Cho discloses a step of sensing the amount
of laundry in the washing tub with a preference for running a cleaning
method when no laundry is in the washing tub at all. Cho i-fi-136, 49, 51.
Thus, Appellant's argument does not adequately explain why one skilled in
the art would not have modified Kim to incorporate Cho' s laundry sensor to
ensure the cleaning operation is conducted in the absence of laundry in the
washer. App. Br. 12.
With respect to claim 20, one skilled in the art would have been
capable of determining the appropriate amount (level) of water necessary for
effective cleaning of an inner peripheral wall of a water tub using ordinary
creativity. App. Br. 13-14. Appellant has not adequately explained
otherwise. See Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743; Bozek, 416 F.2d at 1390.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's separate prior art rejections of
claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
7
Appeal2014-009594
Application 12/307,522
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
10 3 (a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
8