Ex Parte K¿hl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12918084 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121918,084 11/03/2010
46726 7590 05/02/2016
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.
2008P00017WOUS 6040
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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
Appeal2014-000744
Application 12/918,084
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 17 and 19-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-000744
Application 12/918,084
The claims are directed to a domestic appliance for drying a humid
product, comprising a cooling assembly and a heating assembly. Claim 17,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 7. 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; and
a heat pump in which the working fluid is conducted, the
heat pump having at least two displacement pistons, and the heat
pump operating according to a regenerative gas cycle process
that includes a Vuilleumier gas cycle process;
wherein at least one of the first and second heat
exchangers is asymmetrically and laterally arranged with respect
to at least one of the displacement pistons.
2
Appeal2014-000744
Application 12/918,084
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vitale
Seki ya
Inoue
Tadano
us 4,367,625
us 5,400,599
us 5,406,801
US 2005/0199016 Al
REJECTIONS
Jan. 11, 1983
Mar. 28, 1995
Apr. 18, 1995
Sept. 15, 2005
Claims 17, 19-21, 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sekiya, Tadano, Inoue, and Xie. 1
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tadano, Sekiya, and Inoue.2
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiya, Tadano, Inoue, Xie, and Vitale.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tadano, Seki ya, Vitale and Inoue. 3
1 "Xie" refers to Yingbai Xie et al., Investigation on the Performance of the
Gas Driven Vuilleumier Heat Pump, International Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Conference, Paper 936 (2008). Xie is discussed by the
Examiner in support of the rejection from which this appeal was taken, but
was not included in the statement of the rejection. Final Act. 14--15. Xie
was not relied on by the Examiner to teach any specific claim limitations,
but as further supporting the Examiner's finding of a motivation to combine
the other cited art because one skilled in the art would know the advantages
associated with Vuilleumier cycles. Id. We append Xie to the rejection
statement to conform with MPEP § 706.020).
2 Based on the Examiner's explanation of the rejections, it appears Inoue
was inadvertently omitted from the rejection statement.
3 See note 2.
3
Appeal2014-000744
Application 12/918,084
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tadano, Inoue and Sekiya.4
OPINION
Based on the discussions in the Final Office Action, briefs and
Answer, we do not believe Appellants to have been harmed by any of the
formalistic errors in the Examiner's rejection statements as discussed above.
The Examiner's Answer thoroughly and comprehensively addresses all the
issues raised in Appellants' Appeal Brief in an exceptionally clear manner.
We adopt the Examiner's factual findings, analysis and legal conclusions
(Final Act. 2-15; see also Ans. 12-18) as our own.
We cannot agree with Appellants' final remarks (Reply Br. 3--4)
alleging that one skilled in the art of heat pumps would regard teachings
associated with heat pumps predominantly used for cooling applications as
not relevant to heating or drying applications. The distinction lies
predominately in the direction of heat flow, toward or away from, a
particular area of interest. Although mechanical judgement and skill are
likely necessary to implement a heat pump for a particular application, as the
Examiner points out, the fact that Sekiya generally describes "improved
cooling/heating capacities and efficiency" and leaves the ultimate
application open-ended, evinces the fact that one skilled in the art would
know how to implement Sekiya's teachings regarding Vuilleumier-cycle
pumps with various heating or cooling devices. Ans. 13-14; see also
Sekiya, col. 2, 11. 5---6.
4 Based on the Examiner's explanation of the rejections it appears Seki ya
was inadvertently omitted from the rejection statement.
4
Appeal2014-000744
Application 12/918,084
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5