Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10499342 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/499,342 06/17/2004 Yong Suck Park 9988.113.00-US 7624 7590 10/31/2012 Song K Jung McKenna Long & Aldridge 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER HECKERT, JASON MARK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YONG SUCK PARK and YOUNG HAN SONG __________ Appeal 2011-004351 Application 10/499,342 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004351 Application 10/499,342 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-12, and 15-17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is directed to a washing machine capable of measuring the hardness of the washing water using a conductivity sensor and the conductivity sensor itself (Spec. 1:5-13). Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative: 1. A washing machine comprising: a pair of electrodes formed inside an outer tub containing a washing water, for measuring a conductivity of a washing water; an upper protection member and a lower protection member through which the electrodes pass, and one of the upper protection member and the lower protection member is inserted into the other of the upper protection member and the lower protection member; and a sealing member injected into a space formed between the upper protection member and the lower protection member; and a controller for controlling the washing machine according to the measured conductivity of the washing water; wherein the end portions of the electrodes are exposed and pass through the sealing member to directly contact with the washing water. 6. A conductivity sensor of a washing machine, comprising: a pair of electrodes formed at one side of an outer tub, for measuring a conductivity of a washing water; Appeal 2011-004351 Application 10/499,342 3 a protection member for supporting upper and lower portions of the electrodes, the electrodes passing through the protection member, and the protection member forms a closed space therein; a sealing member injected into the closed space; and a housing in which one side of the protection member is sealed; wherein the end portions of the electrodes are exposed and pass through the sealing member to directly contact with the washing water. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 6-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda (US 5,315,847 issued May 31, 1994) in view of Ogawa (US 5,774,996 issued July 7, 1998) or Willenbrock (US 4,196,384 issued Apr. 1, 1980). 2. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Ogawa or Willenbrock and further in view of Sakane (US 5,335,524 issued Aug. 9, 1994) or Knoop (US 4,835,991 issued June 6, 1989). ISSUE 1. Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that there would have been a reason to combine Ogawa’s sealed inclination sensor structure with Takeda’s conductivity sensor? We decide this issue in the affirmative. 2. Did the Examiner fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness by not adequately explaining how Willenbrock’s structure would have Appeal 2011-004351 Application 10/499,342 4 been used to modify Takeda’s structure to arrive at the claimed invention? We decide this issue in the affirmative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES ISSUE (1) Appellants argue that Ogawa discloses a sealed sensor that requires the sealed structure to keep the electrodes submerged in an electrolyte solution 7 (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend that Ogawa does not teach or would not have suggested “an upper protection member and a lower protection member through which the electrodes pass, and one of the upper protection member and the lower protection member is inserted into the other of the upper protection member and the lower protection member” as recited in claim 1. Id. With regard to independent claim 6, Appellants argue that Ogawa fails to teach or would not have suggested “a protection member for supporting upper and lower portions of the electrodes, the electrodes passing through the protection member, and the protection member forms a closed space therein . . . wherein the end portions of the electrodes are exposed and pass through the sealing member to directly contact with the washing water” (id. at 13). We understand Appellants’ arguments to be that Ogawa’s sensor is different than Takeda’s conductivity sensor such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Ogawa’s sealed structure for measuring inclination with Takeda’s conductivity sensor to arrive at the sensor having the upper and lower protection portions nested together as in claim 1 or a protection member with a closed space therein as in claim 6. The Appeal 2011-004351 Application 10/499,342 5 preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ argument of non- obviousness. The Examiner’s sole reason for combining Ogawa’s bottom portion 27 of the sensor with Takeda’s sensor structure is to form a sealed housing (Ans. 6). However, it is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ogawa’s sealed structure with Takeda’s sensor which teaches that the urethane resin “completely seals the overall of the component parts in the sensor casing 18 including the upper and lower surfaces of the circuit board 29” (Takeda, col. 5, ll. 30-34). In fact, Takeda states that the “sealing structure of the sensor 15 therefore [is] remarkably superior in moisture proofing” (id. at col. 5, ll. 34-35). Takeda further discloses that the urethane resin securely holds the circuit board and other parts encapsulated therein (id. at col. 5, ll. 36-43). Based on these teachings, the Examiner’s stated reason for combining (i.e., to provide a sealed housing) is not a credible reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ogawa’s sealed sensor structure for a particular purpose (i.e., to provide sealed chamber for sensing inclination changes) with Takeda’s sensor structure that discloses an already suitably sealed structure for measuring the conductivity of water. The Examiner has not dispensed with the initial duty to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. On this record, we reverse the § 103 rejection over Takeda and Ogawa. ISSUE (2) Appellants argue that the Examiner has not explained what the Examiner regards to be the lower member in Willenbrock and how it could Appeal 2011-004351 Application 10/499,342 6 be adapted to be combined with Takeda’s sensor structure (App. Br. 5-6). We agree. The Examiner’s rejection states that Willenbrock “teaches a lower member inserted into housing 1 (see figure) providing a sealed area which electrode 4 passes” (Ans. 6). The Examiner then finds that a “bottom member as shown in the figure could readily be adapted and used with the conductivity sensor of Takeda without significantly altering the scope or functionality of Takeda’s teachings.” Id. However, the Examiner’s stated rejection fails to explain adequately and specifically which part of Willenbrock is being modified or how. The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, which the Examiner has failed to do on this record. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Takeda in view of Willenbrock. Because the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 based on Takeda and Ogawa or Willenbrock is flawed, the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 3 and 12 is flawed for the same reasons. We reverse the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 12 over Takeda in view of Ogawa or Willenbrock and further in view of Sakane or Knoop. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED bar