Ex Parte Donarski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 12, 2017

13316651 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)

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. 13/316,651 12/12/2011 Robert S. Donarski SUB-US20090555-US-NP 4867 173 7590 10/16/2017 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 EXAMINER SINGH, AMIT K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/16/2017 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT S. DONARSKI, JOHN F. HINES, and JAMES C. JOHNCOCK Appeal 2016-0050741 Application 13/316,6512 Technology Center 3700 Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1—7 and 15—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Sept. 8, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 12, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 10, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 2, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Whirlpool Corporation. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2016-005074 Application 13/316,651 BACKGROUND According to the Specification, “[t]he present disclosure relates generally to cooking ovens and more particularly to electric cooking ovens.” Spec. 11. CLAIMS Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method of operating an electric oven, comprising: generating a door-open signal if an oven door of the electric oven is positioned in an open position, activating an electric broiling element of the electric oven to perform an open-door broil operation in response to generation of the door-open signal, determining the temperature within a cooking chamber of the electric oven during the open-door broil operation and deactivating the electric broiling element if the temperature within the cooking chamber exceeds a first shutoff temperature, generating a door-closed signal if an oven door of the electric oven is positioned in a closed position, activating the electric broiling element of the electric oven to perform a closed-door broil operation in response to generation of the door-closed signal, and determining the temperature within a cooking chamber of the electric oven during the closed-door broil operation and deactivating the electric broiling element if the temperature within the cooking chamber exceeds a second shutoff temperature, the second shutoff temperature being greater than the first shutoff temperature. Appeal Br. 28. 2 Appeal 2016-005074 Application 13/316,651 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—5 and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eff3 in view of Embury.4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eff in view of Embury and Ogle.5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 21—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eff in view of Embury and Lam.6 DISCUSSION Each of the independent claims on appeal requires, inter alia, “generating a door-closed signal if an oven door of the electric oven is positioned in a closed position.” See Appeal Br. 28, 30, 32 (claims 1,15, 24). As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not shown that the art of record teaches or otherwise renders obvious this limitation with respect to each of the independent claims. See Appeal Br. 8, 13—14, 24. The Examiner finds that Eff teaches generating a door closed signal as claimed. Final Act. 3, 6, 13 (citing Eff col. 2,11. 1—15; col. 3,11. 71—74). More specifically, the Examiner finds that Eff discloses generating a door closed signal “at least because a closed door will signal to a user that the door is closed.” Final Act. 15. The Examiner also states that the “door- closed signal” has “been accorded [its] plain meaning under broadest 3 Eff, US 3,367,316, iss. Feb. 6, 1968. 4 Embury et al., US 7,060,941 Bl, iss. June 13, 2006. 5 Ogle, US 5,321,232, iss. June 14, 1994. 6 Lam et al., US 6,175,103 Bl, iss. Jan. 16, 2001. 3 Appeal 2016-005074 Application 13/316,651 reasonable interpretation because” the claims do not recite that the signal is “to be processed by an electrical receiver or a similar device.” Ans. 2—3. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications, by giving claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, we find that the Examiner has applied an unreasonably broad interpretation to the claim limitation at issue that is inconsistent with the Specification. The Specification discloses only the use of electric signals related to a door position sensor and that those signals are interpreted by a control unit. See, e.g., Spec. H 31, 36, 39. Although we must be careful not to read embodiments from the Specification into the claim, the Specification disclosure of only the use of electric signals related to whether the oven door is open or closed such that those signals may be processed by the oven itself shows that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is unreasonably broad and not how one of ordinary skill would interpret the claim in light of the Specification. At the very least, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification requires that the door closed signal claimed is an electric signal. Thus, the claim language does not read on a visual cue, contrary to the Examiner’s findings. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown that the art of record teaches or otherwise renders obvious the claimed step of “generating a door-closed signal. . .” as required by each of the independent claims on appeal because the Examiner has not shown how or why the use of an electric signal for the door-closed signal would have 4 Appeal 2016-005074 Application 13/316,651 been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the rejections of the claims on appeal. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—7 and 15—27 for the reasons set forth herein. REVERSED 5