Ex Parte Hahn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2014

11573960 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte UWE HAHN, HORST NOELLER,
and CLAUDIA SCHOLT
____________________

Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 9-20. Claims 1-8 have been canceled. App. Br. 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 8, 2011, the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed June 30, 2011, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
August 29, 2011, for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 9 under appeal reads as follows with disputed
language in italics:
9. A control panel for controlling a household appliance, the
control panel comprising:
a housing;
an electric or electronic controller disposed in the
housing and including a processing unit and a memory;
a first control element disposed on the housing and
electrically connected to the controller:
a second control element disposed on the housing and
electrically connected to the controller, the second control
element including a ten-digit keypad; and
a single light source activatable by the first control
element and configured to simultaneously illuminate the digits
of the keypad in accordance with a predetermined activation
condition stored in the memory, the light source being
electrically connected to the controller;
wherein the digits of the keypad remain illuminated until
the light source is deactivated, and when the light source is
deactivated, the keypad and light source are substantially
invisible to the human eye.
Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

3
Rejections on Appeal1
The Examiner rejected claims 9-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Staebler (US 2004/0007566 A1, Jan. 15,
2004), Lassota (US 2004/0101608 A1, May 27, 2004), and Hull (US
2004/0224670 A1, Nov. 11, 2004). Ans. 4-10.
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Staebler, Lassota, Hull, and Matsunaga (US
2002/0048166 A1, Apr. 25, 2002). Ans. 10-11.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Staebler, Lassota, Hull, and Iijima (US 2002/0154257 A1,
Oct. 24, 2002). Ans. 11-12.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-14;
Reply Br. 3-7), the principal and dispositive issue before us turns on whether
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Staebler, Lassota, and
Hull teaches or suggests “a ten-digit keypad” and “a single light source
activatable by the first control element and configured to simultaneously
illuminate the digits of the keypad,” as recited in independent claim 9.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We agree with (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to

1 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 10-20. Except for
our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

4
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
Appellants contend “Staebler, Lassota and Hull, both alone and in
combination, fail to teach or suggest a single light source, activatable by a
first control element, that is configured to simultaneously illuminate the
digits of a ten-digit keypad of a second control element.” App. Br. 5-8. In
particular, Appellants contend that the “references do not suggest a single
light source for simultaneous illumination of the digits of a ten-digit
keypad.” Reply Br. 2-5. Appellants also contend that “there would have
been no reason to modify Staebler to include the suggested features of
Lassota or to modify a combination of Staebler and Lassota to include the
features of Hull” and “therefore the suggested combination was made with
impermissible hindsight.” Reply Br. 5-6.
The Examiner finds:
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the
Staebler in view of Lassota and the Hull references since both
pertain to the field of control panels. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention to modify the control panel device of Staebler in view
of Lassota to incorporate the feature of simultaneousely
illuminating the digits of the keypad with a single light as
taught by Hull to gain the additional functionality of providing
a visibility and control to the user while operating the
appliance.
. . . .
. . . Therefore, within concept of illumination for devices,
it would have been obvious for an ordinary skill in the art to
implement a desired type of illumination for its known
advantages in the market industry and attractions to the
customers. Furthermore, Hull is incorporating the feature of
simultaneousely illuminating the digits of the keypad with a
single light to the control panel of Staebler in view of Lassota,
Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

5
and this feature can be implemented and applied to any device
that is disclosing a teaching of light source due to its benefits
for the customer in general.

Ans. 14-15.
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 9. We note at the
outset that there is no material dispute as to the above teachings of Staebler,
Lassota, and Hull stipulated by both Appellants and the Examiner. Rather,
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to combine Staebler and Lassota’s
teaching of a control panel for controlling a household appliance with Hull’s
simultaneously illuminate the digits of a ten-digit keypad. Reply Br. 5-6.
Therefore, the pivotal issue before us turns on whether the combination of
the afore-cited teachings of Staebler/Lassota and Hull as proposed the
Examiner would be proper within the context of obviousness. We answer
this inquiry in the affirmative.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason for combining the known elements in a the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418.
Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

6
Additionally, the Court instructs that:
[r]ejections 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 . . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We find that the ordinarily skilled artisan, being a creative individual
would have been able to fit the teachings of Staebler/Lassota (including
established knowledge in the art) together like pieces of a puzzle to
predictably result in the disputed limitations. In particular, we agree with
the Examiner that the proffered combination of Staebler/Lassota with Hull
would predictably result in a system capable of a desired type of
illumination for its known advantages in the market industry and attractions
to the customers. Ans. 14. In our view, such a statement suffices as an
articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered
combination. As noted above, the case law allows the Examiner to look to
the state of the prior art, including the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled
artisan to arrive at such a reason for combining the known elements of the
prior art. Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon widely available
knowledge in order to arrive at an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to support the proffered combination is proper.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s rejection is an improper
hindsight reconstruction as it does not include knowledge gleaned only from
the Appellants’ disclosure, but rather takes into account the teachings of
Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

7
Staebler, Lassota, and Hull; i.e., knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made. See In re
McLaughlin 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on
obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight
reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention
was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Further, we deem a control panel with a ten-digit keypad to be well
within the skill of an artisan. Ans. 5 (citing Staebler, Fig. 3). Contrary to
Appellants’ allegation, the Examiner has not resorted to hindsight.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9-16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Staebler, Lassota, and Hull.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Staebler, Lassota, Hull, and Matsunaga.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Staebler, Lassota, Hull, and Iijima.

Appeal 2012-001635
Application 11/573,960

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc