Ex Parte Ahn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

11629660 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
11/629,660 07/24/2007 In Geun Ahn 9988.398.00 6651
30827 7590
Dentons US LLP
1900 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SHAHINIAN, LEVON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
mlaip @ dentons.com
paul.fugitt@dentons.com
mlapto @ mckennalong .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IN GEUN AHN
Appeal 2016-006649
Application 11/629,660
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and CHRISTOPHER
L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §6.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a laundry machine
including a rotating drum, a steam generator, a water supply valve and a
water regulator. Further details are evident from a review of claim 1, which
is illustrative and reproduced below:
Appeal 2016-006649
Application 11/629,660
1. A laundry machine comprising:
a first body;
a water supply valve provided at the first body and connected with an
outer water supply;
a drum rotatably mounted within the first body, laundry being loaded
into the drum;
at least one steam generator to generate steam to be supplied into the
drum; and
a water regulator to regulate an amount of water supplied per
predetermined time from the water supply valve to the steam
generator,
wherein the steam generator includes a predetermined water inflow
space therein to allow water to flow therein, to generate steam
from the flowing water and to supply the steam into the drum
without a device for blocking the supplied
steam.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Mittendorf US 2,485,762 Oct. 25, 1949
Sulzmann US 2,989,070 June 20, 1961
Jacobs US 3,242,584 March 29, 1966
Badertscher US 3,584,193 June 8, 1971
Freze US 3,921,308 Nov. 25, 1975
Eaton-Williams US 3,944,785 March 16, 1976
Obata US 5,029,458 July 9, 1991
Newman US 5,290,511 March 1, 1994
Zelina US 6,094,523 July 25, 2000
2
Appeal 2016-006649
Application 11/629,660
Powell US Pat. Pub. 2005/0072383 A1 April 7, 2005
Kleker US 7,235,109 B2 June 26, 2007
Dirschl DT 25 14 771 Sept. 2, 1976
Walterscheid DE31 03 529 A1 Aug. 26, 1982
Tompkins GB 2 179 259 A March 4, 1987
Ronchi EP 0 302 125 Feb. 8, 1989
Nukina JP 02-198595 Aug. 7, 1990
Ito JP 10-071292 A March 17, 1998
Omura JP 2003 093 775 A April 2, 2003
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP
’775), Obata, and Newman or Zelina.
2. Claims 2, 5, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775),
Obata, Newman or Zelina, and Eaton-Williams.
3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775), Obata,
Newman or Zelina, and Ronchi (EPO ’125) or Walterscheid (DE ’529).
4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775, Obata,
Newman or Zelina, and Tompkins (GB ’259) or Dirschl (DT ’771).
5. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775), Obata,
Newman or Zelina, and Badertscher or Mittendorf.
3
Appeal 2016-006649
Application 11/629,660
6. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775), Obata,
Newman or Zelina, and Jacobs or Ito (JP ’292).
7. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775), Obata,
Newman or Zelina, Jacobs or Ito (JP ’292), and Kleker or Freze.
8. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775), Obata, and
Newman or Zelina, Jacobs or Ito (JP ’292), and Eaton-Williams.
9. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775, Obata,
Newman or Zelina, and Sulzmann.
10. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nukina (JP ’595) in view of Omura (JP ’775, Obata,
Newman or Zelina, Jacobs or Ito (JP ’292), and Powell.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness adduced by the Examiner, we
determine that the Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to identify
reversible error in any of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and in the Final Office Action. We offer the
following for emphasis.
Concerning the Examiner’s first stated rejection (Rejection 1),
Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly, we
4
Appeal 2016-006649
Application 11/629,660
select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we decide this appeal as
to this ground of rejection.
Appellant does not particularly and/or substantively dispute (1) the
Examiner’s factual findings with respect to all of the applied references’
teachings and/or (2) the Examiner’s proposed modifications of Nukina (JP
’595) based on the additional teachings of Omura (JP ’775) and Newman or
Zelina (App. Br. 12—14; see Final Act. 4—6).
Rather Appellant focuses on the Examiner’s reliance on Obata in
arguing that the applied references fail to teach or suggest all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Appellant does not dispute that Obata discloses the use of a water
flow regulator (42) between a water supply valve (41) and a downstream
sprayer (32) (Obata, Fig. 2; col. 6,11. 38-42); rather, Appellant contends that
the Examiner errs in determining that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have been led to include a flow regulator between a water supply valve and
the steam generator of Nukina (JP ’595), as modified by Omura (JP ’775)
and Newman or Zelina, based on the additional teachings of Obata with
regard to using a water regulator as part of a cooling water supply (App. Br.
12—13; Obata col. 6,11. 35—60; Fig. 2).
As urged by the Examiner, however, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily recognized the predictable benefit/advantages for the
regulation/control of an incoming water feed/flow to any downstream water
using component, such as the steam generator of Nukina, by adding a water
flow regulator for Nukina’s steam generator water supply as evinced to be
conventionally employed between a water supply valve and a downstream,
water-using component (sprayer) by Obata (Ans. 4, 16).
5
Appeal 2016-006649
Application 11/629,660
Appellant’s argument fails to establish that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would not have expected that employing a water regulator in the
supply line for the steam generator of Nukina would be accompanied by the
predictable benefits of controlling the water supply amount/rate to the steam
generator as determined by the Examiner to be the case (Ans. 4). Nor has
Appellant established unexpected results for the representative claim 1
subject matter.
Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 1 for substantially the fact findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer and the Final Rejection.
Appellant relies on the argument made with respect to Rejection 1 for
contesting Rejections 2—10.
It follows that we shall sustain all of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections (Rejections 1—10).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims 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).
AFFIRMED
6