Ex Parte Im et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2017

12509682 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
12/509,682 07/27/2009 Myong Hum Im LGE-0121 1535
34610 7590 03/28/2017
KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. Box 8638
Reston, VA 20195
EXAMINER
LORENZI, MARC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2017 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):
ked-docket @ ked-iplaw. com
my docket @ icloud. com
keddocket @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MYONG HUM IM, BYUNG KEOL CHOI,
WOO YOUNG KIM, KYUNG CHUL WOO,
KYEONG HWAN KIM, HAN GIL PARK, SOO YOUNG OH,
JAE WON CHANG, and BON KWON KOO
Appeal 2016-000623
Application 12/509,682
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 3, 8—10, 13—15, 19, 20, and
29—34 of Application 12/509,682 (“the ’682 Application”) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 4—12 (Dec. 11, 2014). Appellants1 seek
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 LG Electronics Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000623
Application 12/509,682
BACKGROUND
The ’682 Application relates to a drum type washing machine and
washing method where, in the course of a single revolution, the drum is
turned so that the laundry in the drum is rotated and lifted to an angle greater
than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees, a brake is applied to the drum so
that the laundry drops toward the bottom of the drum, then a force is applied
in the same direction to lift the laundry and the brake is again applied,
causing the laundry to drop. Spec. Tflf 20—23.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’682 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A washing method, performed during one revolution of a
dmm of a washing machine in a first direction, the washing
method consisting of:
applying a first directional torque to the dmm to rotate the dmm
in only the first direction during one revolution of the dmm so
that laundry in the dmm is rotated and lifted to an angle greater
than 90 degtees;
braking the dmm so that the laundry is dropped at an angle less
than 180 degrees; and
repeating the applying the first directional torque to the dmm
and the braking the dmm, so that the laundry in the dmm is
lifted to and dropped from an angle between 90 and 180
degrees, wherein, in the braking the dmm, a second directional
torque, which is a reverse of the first directional torque, is
applied to the dmm to stop the rotation of the dmm.
Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 8—10, 13—15, 19, 20, and 29—32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fumagalli (EP
2
Appeal 2016-000623
Application 12/509,682
1,612,316 Al, pub. April 1, 2006) (hereinafter “Fumagalli”) in view of Pasin
et al. (WO 98/29594 A2, pub. July 9, 1998) (hereinafter “Pasin”) and Koo et
al. (US 2005/0120492, pub. June 9, 2005) (hereinafter “Koo”). Final Act.
^U10.
2. Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fumagalli in view of Pasin et al. Id. at
11-12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. In rejecting claims 1, 3, 8—10, 13—15, 19, 20, and 29—32,
the Examiner applies Fumagalli in view of Pasin and Koo. Id. at 4—10.
The Examiner finds that Pasin teaches that changing the drum speed
and acceleration may cause the laundry to fall from a particular angle and
height. Id. at 7 (| 22). The Examiner additionally finds that Pasin teaches to
drop the laundry when it is at the top of the drum (at an angle 180 degrees
from the start point). Id.', Pasin 4:14—15, 5:26—27 (“the drum is stopped
suddenly about 180° after the starting point”).
The Examiner further finds that Fumagalli teaches that angular
velocity and angular movement of a washing machine drum are result-
effective variables. Final Act. 2—3, 7. In support of such finding, the
Examiner relies upon the following portion of Fumagalli:
ft remains understood that the pause times indicated
above, the angular velocities of drum movement and the extent
of the said angular movements may vary according to
requirements without thereby going beyond the scope of this
Invention as described and claimed below.
Fumagalli 121 (emphasis added). Similarly, Pasin teaches “stopping this
movement at a desired angle and thus obtaining the intended falling angles
3
Appeal 2016-000623
Application 12/509,682
and heights in desired cycles.” Pasin 2:22—23. Moreover, the Examiner
finds that there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range. Final Act.
2; Answer 4.
Appellants do not challenge, or even mention, the Examiner’s finding
that angular movement of a drum washing machine is a result-effective
variable. Appellants also do not make any assertion of criticality. Nor do
they include any substantive discussion of the Pasin reference. See Appeal
Br. 16.
Appellants argue that the claims at issue are to a method “consisting
of’ certain steps and are, therefore, closed in nature. Appeal Br. 15—16.
While this argument may bear upon whether the four-stop method taught by
Fumagalli per se differs from the present claims, it does not address the
portion of the Examiner’s rejection based on Pasin. As above, the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Pasin have not been disputed.
Here, Pasin teaches dropping the laundry from a position “about 180°
after the starting point,” while the claims require that the laundry is dropped
“at an angle less than 180 degrees” (claim 1), or from a height “less than a
maximum height of the drum” (claims 10 and 15).
The Federal Circuit has found claims to be prima facie obvious in
similar circumstances. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469—71 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range
of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior
art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the
protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].”
Accordingly, Appellants have failed to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings regarding claims 1, 3, 8—10, 13—15, 19, 20, and 29—32.
4
Appeal 2016-000623
Application 12/509,682
Rejection 2. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected over Fumagalli in view
of Pasin. Final Act. 11—12. Appellants make substantially the same
arguments in favor of the patentability of these claims as above. Appeal Br.
31—36. Those arguments were not found persuasive for the reasons
previously described. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to show
reversible error in the Examiner’s findings regarding claims 33 and 34.
Any argument not clearly set forth in the Appeal Brief is considered
waived and will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Any argument raised in the
Reply Brief which was not included in the Appeal Brief will not be
considered by the Board absent a showing of good cause. 37 CFR
§ 41.41(b)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3,
8—10, 13—15, 19, 20, and 29—34 of the ’682 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5