Ex Parte K¿hl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

12918085 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/918,085 11/03/2010
46726 7590 04/21/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans-Detlev Klhl
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2008P00016WOUS 6046
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-DETLEV KUHL and ANDREAS STOLZE
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hans-Detlev Kiihl and Andreas Stolze (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 25---63. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM and designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a domestic appliance for drying a humid
product, comprising a cooling assembly and a heating assembly. Claim 25,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
A domestic appliance for drying a damp product by means of a
process air stream conducted in a process air channel, the
domestic appliance comprising:
a treatment chamber that includes the damp product,
wherein the process air stream flows through the treatment
chamber;
a cooling assembly to cool and condense the process air
stream after the process air stream flows through the treatment
chamber, the cooling assembly having a first heat exchanger to
supply heat from the process air stream to a working fluid, and
wherein the process air stream flows through the cooling
assembly;
a heating assembly downstream of the cooling assembly
to heat the process air stream before the process air stream flows
through the treatment chamber, the heating assembly having a
second heat exchanger to supply heat from the working fluid to
the process air stream, and wherein the process air stream flows
through the heating assembly;
a heat pump in which the working fluid is conducted, the
heat pump operating according to a regenerative gas cycle
process;
a first partition wall between a first process air region and
a first working fluid region; and
a second partition wall between a second process air
region and a second working fluid region;
wherein, at least in a vicinity of a first process air inlet, a
first wall temperature of the first partition wall is between 50°C
and 80°C; and
wherein, at least in a vicinity of a second process air inlet,
a second wall temperature of the second partition wall is between
90°C and 140°C.
2
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vitale
Martini
Doi
Seki ya
Honda
Scheper
Tadano '016
Vogel
Tadano
us 4,367,625
us 4,416,114
us 4,683,723
us 5,400,599
us 5,615,556
US 2005/0183208 Al
US 2005/0199016 Al
US 2006/00217 44 A 1
US 2006/0053651 Al
REJECTIONS
Jan. 11, 1983
Nov. 22, 1983
Aug. 4, 1987
Mar. 28, 1995
Apr. 1, 1997
Aug. 25, 2005
Sept. 15, 2005
Feb.2,2006
Mar. 16, 2006
I. Claims 25-27, 36-41, 52, and 63 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiya and Tadano
'016.
II. Claims 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seki ya, Tadano 'O 16, and Vitale.
III. Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sekiya, Tadano '016, and Vogel.
IV. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiya, Tadano '016, and Scheper.
V. Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sekiya, Tadano '016, and Tadano '651.
VI. Claims 42 and 53-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Seki ya, Tadano 'O 16, and Honda.
VII. Claims 43-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seki ya, Tadano 'O 16, and Martini.
3
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
Vlll. Claims 59---62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiya, Tadano '016, and Doi.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Rejecting claims 25-27, 36-41, 52, and 63, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that Sekiya discloses a domestic appliance capable of drying a damp
product by means of a process air stream, with a first partition wall and a
second partition wall. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further finds that
Sekiya does not disclose, inter alia, a treatment chamber that includes the
damp product. Id. The Examiner additionally finds that Tadano '016
discloses, inter alia, a treatment chamber that includes a damp product. Id.
at 3. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious "to modify Sekiya to include a treatment chamber that includes
the damp product ... to provide a practical use of the hot gas from the
apparatus in Sekiya." Id. at 3--4.
In addition to this, the Examiner finds that
Seki ya does not disclose wherein, at least in a vicinity of a first
process air inlet, a first wall temperature of the first partition
wall is between 50° C and 80° C or approximately 70° C; and
wherein, at least in a vicinity of a second process air inlet, a
second wall temperature of the second partition wall is between
90° C and 140° C. However, the partition wall temperatures
were set to optimize two parameters: ( 1) to produce enough
heating (QMH, QMc, [F]ig. 1 Sekiya) and cooling (Qc, [F]ig. 1
Sekiya) in order to dry the damp product in an efficient manner
(2) while achieving a high coefficient of performance of the
heat pump. The second wall temperature must lie between the
high temperature working gas in regions 5, 8 ([F]ig. 1, Sekiya)
4
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
and the cooler process air entering heat exchangers 12 and 16
([F]ig. 1, Sekiya).
Id. at 4.
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious
Id.
to modify Seki ya wherein, at least in a vicinity of a first process
air inlet, a first wall temperature of the first partition wall is
between 50° C and 80° C; and wherein, at least in a vicinity of a
second process air inlet, a second wall temperature of the
second partition wall is between 90° C and 140° C or between
110-130° C since "where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 424, 456, [](CCPA 1955).
In response to this, Appellants argue that their
inventive structure, an example of which is shown in Fig. 4,
that is claimed in claim 25 results in the claimed temperature
ranges due to the location of the first and second partition walls
and specific operating parameters. Appellants submit that it
would not have been obvious from any of the applied references
to provide the first and second partition walls and the specific
operating parameters needed to result in the temperature ranges
claimed in claim 25 without the teachings of the present
Application. Further, Appellants submit that there is nothing in
any of the applied references that would lead one skilled in the
art to perform experiments to provide the claimed temperature
ranges for at least the reason that none of the applied references
disclose the claimed partition walls or determining temperatures
at the specified locations on the partition walls.
App. Br. 11.
Tadano '016 discloses a domestic appliance with a process air stream,
but does not teach a heat pump with a Vuilleumier gas cycle process.
5
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
Todano '016, Fig. 10. Sekiya teaches a heat pump that performs a
Vuilleumier gas cycle process. Sekiya, col. 3, 1. 17- col. 4, 1. 33. Sekiya
describes the temperature in the middle chamber (low) as fluctuating
between 60-115° C. Id. at col. 3, 11. 51-55. It follows that a wall
temperature of heat exchanger 16 would reach between 110-130° C, thereby
anticipating the first wall temperature range as required by claims 25 and 26.
Id. at col. 8, 11. 19-24. Sekiya describes the heat pump temperature in the
middle chamber (high) as fluctuating between 60-75° C. Id. at col. 3, 11. 27-
35. It similarly follows that a wall temperature of heat exchanger 12 would
reach approximately 70°C, thereby anticipating the second wall temperature
range as claimed in claims 25 and 26. Id. at col. 8, 11. 4--8 Thus, Appellants'
argument that "there is nothing in any of the applied references that would
lead one skilled in the art to perform experiments to provide the claimed
temperature ranges for at least the reason that none of the applied references
disclose ... determining temperatures at the specified locations on the
partition walls" is unconvincing. App. Br. 11.
Appellants' arguments that there are no first and second partition
walls in the references are also unconvincing. The first and second partition
walls are identified by the Examiner as being the "wall connecting heat
exchanger 14, [F]ig. 1" and the "wall separating working gas inside 5 and 8
and heat exchangers 12, 16, [F]ig. 1[,]" respectively. Final Act. 2.
Appellants have not argued why the elements identified by the Examiner are
incapable of corresponding to the claimed walls. The middle chamber (low)
and middle chamber (high) of Sekiya have heat exchangers 12, 16 that
correspond to the claimed first and second partition walls. Sekiya, col. 8, 11.
4--29.
6
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to substitute the heat pump of Seki ya for the
heat pump of Tadano '016, as this is no more than "the simple substitution
of one known element for another" with predictable results. See KSR Int 'l v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants additionally argue that a simple replacement of the heat
pump of Tadano 'O 16 for the heat pump of Seki ya would not be possible, as
"[ s ]uch a change would require significant changes to the circuitry and to
related parts of the drying machine itself[,]" and would therefore not have
been obvious. App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds by explaining that the
Tadano '016 and Sekiya references show that "it is within the capabilities of
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a Vuillemier heat pump with the
laundry machine of Tadano '016." Ans. 13. "It is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). "Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability
to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968
(CCP A 1973). Thus, Appellants' argument is not convincing.
Appellants further argue that "the combination o[f] the heat pump of
Sekiya with the drying machine of Tadano [']016 is an example of
impermissible hindsight reconstruction." App. Br. 10. Appellants do not
identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only
from . Appellants' disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
7
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Accordingly, Appellants'
asse1iion is unfounded. See Jn re McLaughlin, 443 F .2d 1392 (CCP A 1971 ).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
25-27, 36-41, 52, and 63. As our conclusion is based on different evidence
than that relied upon by the Examiner in that it refers to Sekiya's description
of the four-stroke hot gas machine in column 3, line 17---column 4, line 33,
and relies on a different rationale for combining the teachings of Seki ya and
Tadano, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellants with a full and fair opportunity to
react to the rejection.
Rejections II-VIII
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 28-35, 42-51, 53-57, and 59---62. See Appeal Br. 12-16. Rather,
Appellants contend that claims 28-35, 42-51, 53-57, and 59---62 should be
allowable for the same reasons as claims 25-27, 36-41, 52, and 63. Id.
We sustain the Examiner's decisions rejection claims 28-35, 42-51,
53-57, and 59---62 for the same reasons we sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 25-27, 36-41, 52, and 63 discussed supra.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 25---63 are AFFIRMED, and
designated a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
8
Appeal2014-002388
Application 12/918,085
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9