Ex Parte Albayrak et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612086470 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/086,470 06/12/2008 Hasan Gokcer Albayrak PTB-6032-15 8531 23117 7590 01/04/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER CALVETTI, FREDERICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HASAN GOKCER ALBAYRAK, KLAUS GRUNERT, THOMAS LUDENIA, GUNTER STEFFENS, and ANDREAS STOLZE Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15—36. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERATE GMBH.” (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants’ invention relates “to a circuit arrangement for a Peltier module for use in a Peltier heat pump for a tumble dryer.” (Spec. 1, lines 3—4.) Illustrative Claim2 15. A circuit arrangement for a Peltier module for use in a Peltier heat pump for a tumble dryer, the circuit arrangement comprising: a Peltier module including at least one series arrangement of Peltier elements, with each series arrangement of Peltier elements being configured to receive voltage from a voltage supply; and a two-position transfer switch, wherein: at a first position of the transfer switch voltage is applied to the Peltier module and the Peltier module generates heat for use in the tumble dryer; at a second position of the transfer switch, voltage is not applied to the Peltier module and the Peltier module does not generate heat for use in the tumble dryer; at the second position of the transfer switch, the Peltier module is operationally connected to an electrical device of the tumble dryer for applying to the electrical device voltage generated by the Peltier module due to a temperature difference between a hot terminal and a cold terminal of the Peltier module resulting from use of the Peltier module as a heat pump for the tumble dryer; and the Peltier module is configured to apply voltage to the electrical device when the Peltier module is separated from the voltage supply to thereby function as a single voltage source for operation of the electrical device. 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims App.”) set forth on pages 16—20 of the Appeal Brief. 2 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 Edwards References US 3,036,383 May 29, 1962 Ramirez US 5,450,727 Sept. 19, 1995 Doke US 5,367,890 Nov. 29, 1994 DeVilbiss US 5,690,849 Nov. 25, 1997 Ludikhuize US 5,747,841 May 5, 1998 Beckius US 2003/0070430 A1 Apr. 17, 2003 Abramov US 2004/0155251 A1 Aug. 12, 2004 Welch US 2005/0039465 A1 Feb. 24, 2005 Tanaka JP 08014723 Jan. 19, 1996 Rejections I. The Examiner rejects claims 15—25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards, Beckius or Welch, Abramov or Tanaka, and Ramirez or DeVilbiss. (Final Action 6—7.) II. The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards, Beckius or Welch, Abramov or Tanaka, Ramirez or DeVilbiss, and Ludikhuize. (Final Action 14.) III. The Examiner rejects claims 29-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards, Beckius or Welch, Abramov or Tanaka, Ramirez or DeVilbiss, and Doke. (Final Action 15.) IV. The Examiner rejects claims 15—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirements. (Final Action 5.) V. The Examiner rejects claims 15—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. (Final Action 5.) VI. The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and 34 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11, 14, 17, 21 of copending Application No. 12086463 (US2009/0049844). (Final Action 3.) 3 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 ANALYSIS Independent claim 15 recites “[a] circuit arrangement for a Peltier module for use in a Peltier heat pump for a tumble dryer,” claim 29 recites “[a] tumble dryer” comprising such a circuit arrangement, and the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 16—28 and 30-36) depend therefrom. (Claims App.) Rejections 1-111-35 U.S.C. § 103 Independent claim 15 recites a “two-position transfer switch” wherein, at a first position, “voltage is applied to the Peltier module and the Peltier module generates heat for use in the tumble dryer,” and wherein, at a second position, “the Peltier module is operationally connected to an electrical device of the tumble dryer for applying to the electrical device voltage generated by the Peltier module due to a temperature difference between a hot terminal and a cold terminal of the Peltier module resulting from use of the Peltier module as a heat pump for the tumble dryer.” (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Edwards discloses a tumbler dryer wherein a Peltier module generates heat for use in a tumble dryer but “is not connected to another electrical device for applying voltage from the Peltier module.” (Final Action 8; see also Edwards, col. 3, lines 2—8; Fig. 3.) The Examiner explains that “Edwards is a mature reference that suggests modification by updating it with advances in the field and that is the basis for rejection.” {Id. at 18.) According to the Examiner, the “[ojther references” show “use of a Peltier device to produce voltage current or connection to a power supply or other devices.” {Id.) 4 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 In other words, independent claim 15 requires the Peltier module to be configured in a circuit so as to switch between functioning as a heat generating component and functioning as an electric-power-generating component. In the primary reference (Edwards), the Peltier module is not configured in a circuit so as to switch between functioning as a heat generating component and functioning as an electric-power-generating component; it only functions as a heat-generating component. And the Examiner’s rejection is premised upon modifying Edwards’s tumble dryer, in view of the teachings of the secondary references (Beckius, Welch, Abramov, Tanaka, Ramirez, DeVilbiss), so that its Peltier module switches between functioning as a heat-generating component and functioning as an electric-power-generating component. We are persuaded by the Appellants’ position that the Examiner does not adequately establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would “have understood or been inclined” to modify Edwards’s tumble dryer in the proposed manner. (Appeal Br. 7.) We are persuaded because we agree with the Appellants that the “associated factual underpinnings” of this rejection are flawed. (Id.) Specifically, the Examiner does not sufficiently support a finding that the secondary references show or suggest that a Peltier module can alternatively function as a heat-generating component and as an electric- power-generating component. Welch, Abramov, Tanaka, Ramirez, and DeVilbiss each teach a Peltier module that functions only as a heating (or cooling) component. (See Welch Fig 1, Abramov Fig. 2, Tanaka Fig. 1, Ramirez Fig. 1, DeVilbiss Fig. 1.) Although Welch and Ramirez teach alternate current directions, “reversing direction of the current flow through the Peltier module typically 5 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 only reverses the hot and cold sides of the Peltier module” and “does not in any way cause the Peltier module to become an electricity generating means.” (Reply Br. 2; see also Welch 136, Ramirez col. 5, lines 12—14). Also, in Abramov, “the same current which produces a thermoelectric effect in a Peltier device also drives an electronic device,” the Peltier module does not generate current. (Appeal Br. 10; see also Abramov 1 30.) As for Beckius, it discloses a portable water purifier wherein a Peltier module “is used only to produce electricity.” (Appeal Br. 8.) In Beckius, the heat source for water-purifying purposes is, for example, a “camp stove” or a “campfire.” (Beckius 131.) The “temperature differential” that allows Peltier module to be “employed to generate an electrical current” would not exist without such a camper-friendly heat source. (Id. 137.) In Beckius, the Peltier module only functions as an electric-power-generating component and would be unable to function in even this single capacity without a separate heat-generating component. Accordingly, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would infer, from the teachings of the secondary references or otherwise, that the Peltier module in Edwards’s tumble dryer could and should be modified to function both as a heat generating component and as an electric-power-generating component. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejections IVand V—35 U.S.C. § 112 As discussed above, independent claim 15 requires that the Peltier module be “operationally connected to an electrical device of the tumble 6 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 dryer for applying to the electrical device voltage generated by the Peltier module.” (Claims App.) The Examiner determines that the claims on appeal do not satisfy the §112 requirements of description, enablement, and definiteness. (See Final Action 4—6.) According to the Examiner, the Specification does not describe or enable “any or all electrical devices” and “[t]he claims do not recite a Peltier device having the capability to generate electricity to power any and all electrical devices.” (Id. at 5, 6.) We are persuaded by the Appellants’ position that the claims on appeal satisfy the requirements of35U.S.C. § 112. (See Appeal Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 6—7.) We are persuaded because the Examiner does not sufficiently show how or why that the claims fail to pass the applicable tests for written description, enablement, and definiteness. As for the written description requirement, the test is “whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” In re Kaslow 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We agree with the Appellants that the Specification, as originally filed, conveys possession of the Peltier module and electrical devices (i.e., consumers) recited in the claims on appeal. (See Appeal Br. 13—14.)3 3 The Specification states that the Appellants’ invention “particularly addresses the Seeback effect occurring in the Peltier module” that allows it to supply voltage to “suitable other consumers.” (Spec. 2, lines 25—27.) The Specification also identifies preferred “consumers” as “an interior illumination of the tumble dryer,” “a sensor for a voltage obtained via the Peltier module,” and “a sensor for an electrical resistor of the Peltier module.” (Id., at 3, lines 10—30.) The Specification additionally lists “[fjurther preferred consumers” as “sensors and controllers for suitable 7 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 As for the enablement requirement, the test is whether one skilled in the art, after reading the Specification, “could practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736—37 (Fed. Cir. 1988.). The prior art of record reflects that electrical devices (e.g., diodes, sensors, display elements, control units, etc.), and a Peltier device having the capability to generate electricity to power such electrical devices, are within the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art. (See e.g., Edwards, col. 2, lines 19-21; Welch 114; Abramov 1 8, Ramirez, Abstract; DeVilbiss, col. 4, lines 1—65, Beckius ^fl[ 17, 21, 38, 66, 73, Figs. 1, 2, 6.) Moreover, “the Examiner has not addressed any of [the eight Wands] factors and therefore fails to set forth a prima facie case of non-enablement.” (Appeal Br. 13.) As for the definiteness requirement, the test is “whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification.” Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the Examiner’s implication that the claim term “electrical device” encompasses a broad range of elements to which electrical device voltage generated by the Peltier module could be applied. However, this concern relates to the breadth of the claims and “breadth is not to be equated with indefmiteness.” In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. aspects of the processes and display elements running in the tumble dryer” which are “preferably integrated into a control unit for the tumble dryer.” (Id.) 8 Appeal 2015-004290 Application 12/086,470 Rejection VI— Obvious-Type Double Patenting According to the Examiner, the Appellants “request that a response be deferred” on this rejection. (Answer 2.) We therefore exercise our discretion to not review the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type (i.e., non-statutory) double patenting rejection at this time. See Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15—36 under 35U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation