Ex Parte Kaczmarek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11794380 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte WOLFGANG KACZMAREK and
GERD WILSDORF
________________

Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11-19 and 21-31. Claims 1-10 and 20 are canceled.
Claims 32-34 are allowed. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 11-14, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over King (US 7,296,236 B2, issued Nov. 13, 2007) and Becke (US
2003/0209018 A1, published Nov. 13, 2003). Ans. 3-5.1
Claims 15-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over King, Becke, and Cook (US 5,441,344, issued Aug. 15, 1995).
Ans. 5-6.
Claims 25, 26, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over King, Becke, and Laity (US 2001/0027055 A1, published Oct.
4, 2001). Ans. 6-8.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over King,
Becke, Laity, and Cook. Ans. 8-9.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a dishwashing machine having a
status indicator for the reproduction of an operating state. Spec. 1, ll. 3-5.
Claim 11 is illustrative and reproduced below:
11. A dishwashing machine, comprising:
an appliance door having an external planar
surface area;

1 The Examiner’s Answer states claims 11-14 and 19 are rejected (Ans. 3);
however, the Examiner’s Answer also discuss claims 21 and 22 (Ans. 5).
We treat claims 21 and 22 as also included in this ground of rejection.
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

3
a concealed control unit for the control of the
dishwashing machine; and
a status indicator for indicating an approximate
operating state of the dishwashing machine, wherein the
entire external planar surface area of the appliance door
is substantially visibly free from the concealed control
unit.

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 11-14, 19, 21, AND 22 OVER KING
AND BECKE
Claims 11, 13, 14, 19, and 21
The Examiner finds King and Becke collectively teach all limitations
of claim 11. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue there is no motivation for modifying King based on
Becke. App. Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner explains King discloses a dishwasher with
a status indicator leaving a blank as to what is being displayed. “Becke
discloses a dishwasher with a status indicator specific to operating states
indication,” and, therefore, “Becke fills in King’s ‘blank’ as the teaching of
displaying specifically operating states information.” Ans. 19 (citing
Becke, ¶0014).
We are not persuaded of error.
King (Figure 3) discloses a dishwasher including a display 42. Becke
(Abstract) discloses a display element for displaying an operating state of an
electrical appliance. We see no reason why King would not have benefitted
from the advantages of including Becke’s displaying of an operating state.
Becke, ¶0014. Becke’s teaching of displaying an operating state is readily
applicable to King because King includes display 42 but is silent as to the
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

4
content on display 42. As such, modifying King’s display 42 to include
Becke’s feature of displaying an operating state would have been a
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions
— an obvious improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative — a court must ask whether the improvement is
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, as well as
claims 13, 14, 19, and 21, which are not separately argued.

Claims 12 and 22
Appellants argue “neither King nor Becke disclose[s] or suggest[s] the
use of a light emitting element to indicate approximate operating states of a
dishwasher.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 1-3.
The Examiner explains Becke discloses operating states. Ans. 4
(citing Becke, ¶¶0014-15). The Examiner further explains “King discloses
continuous light emitting elements that as noted to be status indicators
(King, Figure 3, Items 40 and 42).” Ans. 19.
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

5
Appellants attack the references individually. We agree with the
Examiner that King and Becke collectively teach the recited status indicator.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, as well as
dependent claim 22, which is not separately argued.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 15-18, 23, AND 24 OVER KING,
BECKE, AND COOK
Claims 15, 17, 23, and 24
Claims 15, 17, 23, and 24 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Appellants argue the combination of King and Becke is improper. App. Br.
9. For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 11, we are not
persuaded of error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, 17, 23,
and 24.

Claim 16
The Examiner finds King, Becke, and Cook collectively teach all
limitations of claim 16. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Cook does not teach “placing the status indicator in
a depression on the handle.” App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue there is
no motivation for locating the status indicator in a depression on the handle.
Id.
In response, the Examiner explains Cook (element 12, Figure 1) and
Becke (element 9, Figures 1 and 2) demonstrate a status indicator within a
depression in the handle element which allows for a tighter grip. Ans. 20.
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

6
We agree with the Examiner that King, Becke, and Cook collectively
teach the recited status indicator configured into a depression in the handle
element. The references are a combination of familiar elements in the art,
yielding no more than yield predictable results. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Claim 18
Appellants argue the references “fail to disclose or suggest that the
handle of a dishwasher would have a panel, and where a status indicator
would be arranged in or behind the panel.” App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner explains “Cook discloses having a
transparent cover (Cook, Figures 2 and 3, Item 19; Column 4, Lines 1-5)
over a display panel on the handle.” Ans. 20. We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 25, 26, AND 28-31 OVER KING,
BECKE, AND LAITY
General
Appellants argue “Laity is non-analogous art.” App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner explains status indication using lighting
exists in the endeavors of Appellants, King, Becke, and Laity. Ans. 21.
That is, Appellants’ field of endeavor is not just dishwashers but includes
electronic devices with light status indicators. We agree with the Examiner
that Laity is analogous art.

Claim 25
Appellants argue:
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

7
Laity does not provide any teaching that a status indicator light
for a dishwasher should emit a flashing light when the
dishwashing machine is running, continuous light after a
cleaning operation has been completed, and no light when the
dishwashing machine is off. Laity only teaches that when an
electrical signal is sensed on a particular wire, a light should be
illuminated.
App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3-4.
However, in the rejection, the Examiner explains “Laity discloses an
electronic device using LEDs as status indicators as well as using different
light stances (Laity, [0019]: ‘steady state’, ‘pulsed mode’).” Ans. 7.
The Examiner further explains:
Also while none of the references specifically limit a
specific light stance to a specific operational status, it would
have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art . . . to
assign a specific light stance (flashing, continuous light, no
light) to a specific operational status; Laity does not limit
having a single stance to a single operational status (Laity,
[0019]: “operated steady state [continuous] or in a pulse mode
[emitting] to provide still further status indications”).
Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that the collective teachings of King,
Becke, and Laity teach the recited light emitting element emission details.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.

Claim 26
Appellants argue King, Becke, and Laity do not disclose “a
dishwasher where a handle of the dishwasher has a depression, and where
the status indicator light is arranged behind a panel of the handle so that it is
not visible from the front of the dishwasher.” App. Br. 11-12.
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

8
However, in the rejection, the Examiner explains “Becke discloses
being able to display status indicator while not being visible ‘from the front’
(Figure 2, Item 17; [0037]).” Ans. 8. Appellants do not persuasively
explain why the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are erroneous.
We agree with the Examiner that the collective teachings of King,
Becke, and Laity teach the recited limitations. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.

Claims 28 and 29
Appellants argue “neither Becke nor King disclose[s] a status
indicator that is a light emitting element that is capable of emitting light that
would be visible in a gap between the top wall of the door and the bottom
surface of a countertop, as recited in claim 28.” App. Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 4.
However, in the rejection, the Examiner finds Becke teaches the
argued limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Becke, element 17, Figure 2).
We agree. We note that when the door is closed, there would be a gap
and light would be capable of emitting from the gap, and thus the collective
teachings teach or suggest the disputed limitation. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 28, as well as claim 29, which depends from
claim 28 and is not separately argued.

Claim 30
Appellants present the same arguments as those presented with
respect to claim 25. App. Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

9
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 for the
same reasons as discussed above when addressing claim 25.

Claim 31
Appellants argue that none of the references discloses or suggests the
recited first light emitting element located on a right side of the top wall of
the door and a second light emitting element located on a left side of the top
wall of the door. App. Br. 13.
However, in the rejection, the Examiner explains “King discloses
having multiple light emitting elements throughout the top wall of the door
(King, Figure 3, Item 52).” Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner that this
suggests to ordinarily skilled artisan a light on both the right and left side of
the door’s top wall as recited.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 27 OVER KING, BECKE, LAITY, AND
COOK
Appellants argue:
As noted above, none of the references of record
disclose[s] or suggest[s] that an indicator light be located in a
depression of a handle, that the status indicator be arranged
behind a panel such that it is not visible from the front of the
dishwashing machine, or that light from the light emitting
element be visible in the depression of the handle. As also
explained above, it is respectfully submitted that it requires the
impermissible use of hindsight to find a motivation to modify
what is disclosed in the applied references to arrive at a
dishwasher where the light emitting element emits a flashing
light when the dishwashing machine is running, continuous
Appeal 2011-010784
Application 11/794,380

10
light after a cleaning operation has been completed, and no light
when the dishwashing machine is off.
App. Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner refers to the Examiner’s discussion of
claim 25. Ans. 22. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions. We refer to our previous discussion of claims 25-
26 and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-19 and 21-31 is
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).

AFFIRMED
llw