Ex Parte Has

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

10994948 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte UWE HAS
____________________

Appeal 2010-004296
Application 10/994,948
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004296
Application 10/994,948
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A vapor extraction apparatus, comprising:
a blower device for moving air;
a sensor device for detecting a measured value relating to
an area surrounding the vapor extraction apparatus, an oxygen
content being detected as the measured value by said sensor
device; and
a control device for controlling said blower device on a
basis of a detected measured value received from said sensor
device.
Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 1, with the addition of the following
limitation:
an air-conditioning regulating device for regulating the air
and/or room climate in the area surrounding the vapor
extraction apparatus.
Independent claim 16 is similar to claim 1, except that it specifies that the
sensor is “for detecting a measured oxygen content value.”

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Ferlise
Mayer
Melink
Faqih
Mori
Tajima
US 3,690,245
US 4,040,042
US 6,170,480 B1
US 6,574,979 B2
JP 59035743 A
JP 05187695 A
Sep. 12, 1972
Aug. 2, 1977
Jan. 9, 2001
Jun. 10, 2003
Feb. 27, 1984
Jul. 27, 1993
Appeal 2010-004296
Application 10/994,948
3

Rejections
I. Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Faqih.
II. Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Melink and Tajima.
III. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Melink, Tajima, and Ferlise or Mayer.
IV. Claims 1, 2, and 16 are rejected under § 102(b) as anticipated by Mori
or, in the alternative, under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mori.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Rejection I – Faqih
In general, Faqih describes a device that extracts water vapor from the
air to collect drinking water. Faqih, Abstr. The Examiner found that Faqih
anticipates the subject matter of claims 9 and 11-14. Ans. 3-4, 7. Regarding
this rejection, Appellant argues:
i. Faqih is a water extractor, not a vapor extractor. App. Br. 7-8.
ii. Sensor 805 in Faqih is not near the blower device and cannot
determine the humidity of the air adjacent the blower. App. Br.
8; Reply Br. 2.
iii. Faqih is not an air conditioning device. Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. With respect to (i) and (ii),
the Examiner adequately explains why in the Answer at page 7. Namely,
Appeal 2010-004296
Application 10/994,948
4
humidity is water vapor and the sensor 805 is depicted as next to the blower
to sense the humidity of the air reaching the blower. As to (iii), we note that
Appellant has not proffered any definition of air conditioning device. Air
conditioning devices remove humidity from the air and, as such, Faqih’s
device is an air conditioning device.1 We sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II – Melink and Tajima
The Examiner found that Melink describes a kitchen exhaust system
substantially as claimed, except for a sensor specifically to monitor oxygen.
Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Tajima describes detecting oxygen for the
purpose of providing quality air. Id.
Appellant argues:
i. There is no teaching, suggestion, or reason in Melink or Tajima
to combine the oxygen sensor of Tajima with the kitchen
exhaust system of Melink. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. Appellant
points out that Melink is concerned with fire safety and air
quality by way of temperature. App. Br. 10.
ii. Tajima does not disclose or suggest a sensor for the area
surrounding a vapor extraction apparatus. Reply Br. 4, 5.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. First, the Supreme Court has
indicated that strict reliance on TSM and the explicit content of issued
patents is improper and that an obviousness analysis need only identify

1 “Any device that modifies or controls one or more aspects of air, such as
its temperature, relative humidity, purity, or motion.” Academic Press
Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992) (retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/apdst/air_conditioner) (last visited
Sep. 10, 2012). See also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (if the Specification does not define or suggest a particular
meaning for a term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary).

Appeal 2010-004296
Application 10/994,948
5
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Melink to include an oxygen sensor is
to improve air quality. Ans. 4, 7-8 (citing, e.g., Tajima, para. [0005]2).
Appellant’s arguments focus on the individual teachings of the references in
isolation and, as such, are unpersuasive. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established
by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references”). We sustain Rejection II.
Rejection III – Melink, Tajima, Ferlise, Mayer
Appellant’s argument with respect to this rejection is similar to that of
Rejection II, namely, that there is no motivation to combine. App. Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. We
sustain Rejection III.
Rejection IV – Mori
The Examiner found that Mori anticipates the subject matter of claims
1, 2, and 16. Ans. 5-6. In general, Mori describes a ventilation fan used in
conjunction with an appliance such as a heater or stove, which automatically
draws in fresh outside air when oxygen levels inside a room fall to certain
levels. See, e.g., Mori 10:7-17. Appellant argues:
i. Mori extracts vapor from outside to move inside, not inside to
outside. Reply Br. 6.

2 At paragraph [0005], Tajima describes using an oxygen sensor, among
other sensors, to control various devices including an air conditioner and
kitchen hood. This paragraph describes the sensors being used to solve
previously mentioned problems, which involve air quality and safety, and
particularly including smoke. Tajima, para. [0003].
Appeal 2010-004296
Application 10/994,948
6
ii. The Examiner does not provide “substantial evidence support
that Mori discloses or suggests an air-conditioning regulating
device.” Reply Br. 6.
iii. Mori is not a “vapor extraction apparatus.” Reply Br. 7.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Regarding argument (i), as
the Examiner points out, the claims do not specify the direction of air
movement. Ans. 6. Regarding argument (ii), Appellant does not set forth,
nor do we find, any reason why the Mori device (affecting the purity and
motion of air) is not an air conditioner. See note 1, supra. Regarding
argument (iii), as the Examiner points out, the claim does not require a vapor
extraction hood (or, as we explained above, a device that moves vapor from
inside the room to outside the room). Ans. 6. Accordingly, Appellant’s
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not
specify where vapor is moved to or from.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding
claims 1-17. 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

hh