AMOTECH CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

15076981 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

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.
15/076,981 03/22/2016 Duck Hyun SONG JLE0146USD 1167
23413 7590 08/03/2020
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
CORMIER, DAVID G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DUCK HYUN SONG
____________

Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LILAN REN, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–5 and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AMOTECH
CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

2
The invention relates to an apparatus for and method of driving a
washing machine comprising a control unit configured to perform specific
functions. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 15. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for driving a washing machine, the
apparatus comprising:
a double stator fixed to a lower surface of an outer tub, a
first coil and a second coil being provided on an inner side and
an outer side of the double stator, respectively;
an inner rotor disposed with a gap on an inner
circumferential surface of the first coil of the double stator and
connected with a washing tub;
an outer rotor disposed with a gap on an outer
circumferential surface of the second coil of the double stator
and connected with a pulsator disposed inside the washing tub,
wherein the outer rotor is disposed further away from a rotation
axis of the washing tub and the pulsator than the inner rotor;
and
a control unit configured to apply a first drive signal to
the first coil and a second drive signal to the second coil
separately from the first drive signal,
wherein the control unit is configured to drive the inner
rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction to thus rotate the
washing tub and the pulsator in the first direction, and,
thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second direction opposite
to the first direction to thus rotate the pulsator in the second
direction opposite to that of the washing tub, thereby being able
to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a
rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator.

Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

3
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1–5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Imai (US 6,257,027
B1, issued July 10, 2001), Kim ’584 (US 2011/0179584 A1, published July
28, 2011), and Kim ’022 (US 2006/0042022 A1, published March 2, 2006).
Appeal Br. 5; Final Act. 4.
Appellant presents arguments only for independent claim 1. See
generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection based on Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions that Appellant presents in the
Appeal Brief and the Examiner presents in the Final Office Action and the
Answer, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–5 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents. We add the
following for emphasis.
Independent claim 1 recites a control unit configured to drive the
outer rotor in a second direction opposite to the first direction to thus rotate
the pulsator in the second direction opposite to that of the washing tub,
thereby being able to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a
rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator.

CLAIM INTERPRETATION
As a preliminary matter, our review of the Examiner's analysis
requires that the claims must first be construed to define the scope and
meaning of the subject matter before us on appeal. See Gechter v. Davidson,
Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

4
116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During prosecution before the
Examiner, the claim language should be given its broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions or
enlightenment contained in the written description of Appellant's
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 1 recites that “the control unit is configured to” “to start, in an
efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that
of the pulsator.” According to Appellant, this language is a limitation
describing a manipulative step performed by the claimed controller. Appeal
Br. 7. On the other hand, the Examiner asserts that the disputed language
does not recite an active manipulative step, but merely describes an outcome
or result of performing a previous step. Ans. 6. However, we note that the
disputed language is preceded by the language “thereby being able” and,
thus, reads in its entirety as “thereby being able to start, in an efficient way,
the washing tub requiring a rotational torque higher than that of the
pulsator.”
After weighing the positions Appellant and the Examiner present, we
determine that the disputed language, when considered in connection with
the language that precedes it, does not require the claimed control unit to be
configured “to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a
rotational torque higher than that of the pulsator.”2 At best, the disputed
language recites a conditional or optional limitation when read in connection

2 If prosecution is further continued, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the disputed language complies with the requirement for
definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

5
with the phrase “thereby being able” preceding it. Thus, we interpret the
control unit of claim 1 as follows:
the control unit is configured to drive the inner rotor and the outer
rotor in a first direction to thus rotate the washing tub and the
pulsator in the first direction, and, thereafter, to drive the outer
rotor in a second direction opposite to the first direction to thus
rotate the pulsator in the second direction opposite to that of the
washing tub.

REJECTION
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Imai teaches
an apparatus for driving a washing machine comprising a control unit
configured to apply a first drive signal to the first coil and a second drive
signal to the second coil separately from the first drive signal. Final Act. 4;
see generally Appeal Br. Further, both Appellant and the Examiner agree
that the control unit in Imai’s apparatus is not configured to perform the
claimed functions. Appeal Br. 6; Final Act. 4. To address this deficiency,
the Examiner turns to the Kim references. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner
finds that Kim ’584 discloses controlling rotation of an inner tub and/or a
pulsator of a washing machine to perform various combinations of steps,
including a tapping washing motion performed by rotating the inner tub in a
given direction and the pulsator may be integrally rotated with the inner tub.
Final Act. 4–5; Kim ’584 ¶¶8, 40–45, 106, 108. The Examiner further finds
that Kim ’022 discloses a washing machine method having a washing cycle
in which the pulsator and inner tub are rotated in opposite directions. Final
Act. 5; Kim ’022 Figure 7; ¶ 92. From the noted disclosures of the Kim
references, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

6
of ordinary skill in the art to modify and configure the control unit of Imai’s
apparatus to perform the claimed functions. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish where or
how the cited references disclose a control unit configured as claimed.
Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, the Examiner benefits from
impermissible hindsight in arriving at the claimed invention from the
teachings of the cited art. Final Act. 7. Appellant additionally argues that
the Examiner’s assertion that
“driv[ing] the inner rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction,
to thus rotate the washing tub and the pulsator in the first
direction, and, thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second
direction opposite to that of the washing tub” was known “to
start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational
torque higher than that of the pulsator”
lacks evidentiary support. Appeal Br. 7 (alteration in original).
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981). Therefore, Appellant’s
argument does not address adequately the rejection the Examiner presents.
Further, an obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of
the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill
in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re
Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

7
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968).
Both Kim ’584 and Kim ’022 are directed to enhancing washing
performance by controlling rotation of an inner tub and/or a pulsator in
various ways during washing of laundry. Kim ’584 ¶ 8; Kim ’022 ¶ 14. As
the Examiner points out, the combined teachings of the Kim references
disclose it is known to control the rotation of an inner tub and/or pulsator of
a washing machine to rotate the inner tub and a pulsator in a given direction
(Kim ’584 ¶¶ 40–45) and rotating the inner tub and the pulsator in opposite
directions (Kim ‘’022 ¶ 92). Ans. 4. In fact, Kim ’022 discloses that under
certain conditions, the inner tub and the pulsator are rotated in the same
direction. Kim ’022 Figure 8; ¶ 93. That is, Kim ’022 suggests controlling
the rotation of the inner tub and pulsator as claimed. Therefore, the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been within the level of
ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, to have
configured Imai’s control unit
to drive the inner rotor and the outer rotor in a first direction to
thus rotate the washing tub and the pulsator in the first direction,
and, thereafter, to drive the outer rotor in a second direction
opposite to the first direction to thus rotate the pulsator in the
second direction opposite to that of the washing tub
is supported by the record. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); Ball
Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984,
993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme
Court, the PTO must take account of the “inferences and creative steps,” as
well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ).
Appeal 2019-004842
Application 15/076,981

8
Thus, the Examiner provided a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to
modify Imai’s control unit and reasonably expect that the modified control
unit would perform the claimed functions to enhance the washing
performance. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.”).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections of
claims 1–5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner
presents and we give above.
We have considered Appellant’s argument with respect to the
limitation “to start, in an efficient way, the washing tub requiring a rotational
torque higher than that of the pulsator” in our deliberations. However, as we
explain above, the language “thereby being able” preceding this noted
limitation does not positively require that the control unit drive the inner tub
and pulsator for that purpose.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 17 103 Imai, Kim ’584,
Kim ’022
1–5, 17

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED