Ex Parte Ashrafzadeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12388584 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
12/388,584 02/19/2009 FARHAD ASHRAFZADEH PAT-US20080156-US-NP 1748
173 7590 12/21/2016
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FARHAD ASHRAFZADEH,
JAMES P. CAROW, and
SHREECHARAN KANCHANAVALLY
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—3 and 5—15. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for controlling the operation of a
laundry treating appliance comprising a rotatable drum at least
partially defining a treating chamber for receiving laundry for
treatment in accordance with a treating cycle of operation, the
method comprising:
imaging the laundry to generate image data;
determining a surface area of the laundry from the image
data; and
automatically selecting a treating cycle of operation of
the laundry treating appliance based on the determined surface
area of the laundry.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 and 5—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of written description.
Claims 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hasegawa (JP 4-244193, pub. Sept. 1, 1992).
Claims 1—3 and 5—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hasegawa and Neuberger (US 7,177,487 B2, iss. Feb. 13,
2007).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3 and 5—15 as lacking an adequate written description
The Examiner determined that the steps of “automatically selecting a
treating cycle of operation of the laundry treating appliance based on the
determined surface area of the laundry” and “automatically selecting a type
of treating chemistry based on the determined number of individual items of
laundry,” as recited respectively in claims 1 and 13 are not supported by the
originally specification or original claims 4 and 15. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3—6.
2
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
Appellants argue that claims 1 and 13 were amended to include the
limitations of original claims 4 and 15, which recited this subject matter, and
Appellants amended paragraphs 32 and 45 of their Specification to recite the
subject matter of original claims 4 and 15. Br. 6, 10. Appellants argue that
these amendments to paragraphs 32 and 45 do not introduce new matter. Id.
Appellants further argue that examples in their Specification describe how
the surface area and number of items the laundry can be determined and how
this information can be used to control operation of the appliance. Id. at 7
(citing Spec. Tflf 36—60, Figs. 6—9), 11 (same).
The Examiner’s finding that the automatic selection steps in claims 1
and 13 lack a written description in the Specification is not supported by a
preponderance of evidence. The Examiner’s conclusory determination that
these limitations “are new matters not supported by the originally filed
specification” (Final Act. 3) does not explain sufficiently why these steps are
not disclosed in Appellants’ Specification, particularly when original claims
4 and 15 recited “selecting the treating cycle of operation of the laundry
treating appliance based on the determined surface area of the laundry” and
“dispensing a treating chemistry into the treating chamber, wherein at least
one of the type and amount of the treating chemistry is selected based on the
determined surface area of the laundry,” respectively. Original claims are
part of the original disclosure and can provide written description support.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding that this subject matter does not
appear in the specification (Ans. 4, 6), Figure 6 (steps 126, 128), Figure 9
(step 140), and paragraph 45 disclose that at least one parameter of the cycle
of operation is set based on determined surface area and number of items.
Paragraphs 32, 34, and 35 also describe operation parameters and cycles.
3
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
Paragraphs 50—59 describe different ways in which the surface area
and the number of items may be determined from image data. Paragraph 60
discloses that a cycle of operation of clothes dryer 10 may be adapted
automatically for optimum drying performance depending on the determined
surface area and the number of items in the load.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—15 for lack
of written description.1 Because this issue involves the same subject matter
as the Examiner’s new matter rejection of the amendment to paragraphs 32
and 45, our decision on this rejection is also dispositive as to the Examiner’s
new matter objection. See MPEP § 2163.06, Part II. (9th Ed. Rev. 7, Nov.
2015).
Claims 13—15 as anticipated by Hasegawa
The Examiner found that Hasegawa discloses the method recited in
claim 13 including imaging laundry via CCD camera 18 to generate image
data and automatically determining a number of individual items of laundry
by determining the quantity of items from image data 10 and selecting a
treating chemistry based on the determined number of items by using water
as a treatment chemistry. Final Act. 3—A. The Examiner interpreted the term
“quantity” to mean “a number or an amount” and reasoned that Hasegawa’s
disclosure of using image data to determine a “quantity” of items satisfied
the limitation of “determining a number of individual items of laundry from
the image data,” as recited in claim 13. Ans. 8.
1 The Examiner’s determination that a skilled artisan would not be able to
perform the claimed automatic selection steps of claims 1 and 13 (Ans. 4, 6)
involves issues of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and
consideration of the Wands factors. See MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.01(a). We
do not reach this issue as it has not been set forth as a rejection.
4
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
Appellants argue that Hasegawa uses image data to determine the
quantity of laundry within an appliance and whether the laundry within the
tub is a small, medium, or large load rather than determining the number of
individual items of laundry from the image data. Br. 16. Appellants also
argue that Hasegawa determines a total amount of laundry rather than a
number of items of laundry as claimed. Id. at 16—17. We agree.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Hasegawa discloses a method that determines a number of individual items
of laundry from image data, as claimed. Appellants’ Specification describes
this subject matter as determining how many individual items of laundry
156, 158 are present in load 152. Spec. 1 50, Figs. 7, 8.
The Examiner’s interpretation of a quantity or volume of laundry in
Hasegawa as disclosing or corresponding to a number of individual items is
an unreasonably broad interpretation in light of Appellants’ Specification.
Hasegawa teaches that as the quantity (volume) of laundry 30 in inner tub 2
increases from small to medium level to large, the proportion of laundry 30
seen in the image pickup range of CCD camera 18 increases from A1 to A2
to A3, which are disclosed as different levels or amounts of laundry in inner
tub 2. Hasegawa 115, Fig. 5.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13—15.
Claims 1—3 and 5—15 as unpatentable over Hasegawa and Neuberger
The Examiner found that Hasegawa discloses a method for controlling
operation of a laundry treating apparatus, as recited in claim 1, including
judging the quantity of laundry based on the output image of the laundry and
Neuberger teaches a method for determining particle size and surface area
from a digital image. Final Act. 5—6.
5
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
Hasegawa to determine the surface area and number of laundry items based
on the laundry image and control the operation of the appliance based on the
determined surface area of the laundry to pursue an intended use and obtain
a predictable control result. Id. at 6; Ans. 12, 16. The Examiner determined
that converting a volume unit of a quantity of articles in Hasegawa to their
surface areas unit, as claimed, can be done based on a geometric formula as
a matter of convenience for control purposes. Ans. 12.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Hasegawa and Neuberger to render obvious claims 1 and 13
because Hasegawa is directed to determining a quantity of laundry based on
the amount of laundry in tub 2, and Neuberger determines sizes of particles
placed on a flat surface for imaging. Br. 24—25, 32—34. Appellants argue
that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to include Neuberger’s flat
surface imaging method into Hasegawa’s washing machine because such a
modification would not work. Id. at 25, 34—35. Appellants also argue that
volume and surface area are not equivalents and a volume determination in
Hasegawa cannot be used to determine the surface area of claim 1. Id. at 24.
The Examiner’s reason for combining teachings of Hasegawa and
Neuberger to render obvious the subject matter of claims 1—3 and 5—15 is
not supported by a rational underpinning. The Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to do so “in order to pursue an intended use
and obtain a predictable control result” is not supported by any scientific
evidence or technical reasoning. Such conclusory reasons do not provide
rational underpinnings or proper motivation for patentability determinations.
6
Appeal 2015-002659
Application 12/388,584
Neuberger teaches a method of using images of particles (Figures 4—
16) to determine the number, surface areas of the particles (Table 1), and the
volumes of the particles (Table 2). Neuberger, 8:22—10:37 (Examples 1, 2).
The Examiner has not explained sufficiently why a skilled artisan would
have been motivated to apply Neuberger’s methodology for determining
surface area and number of particles to Hasegawa’s method of controlling a
washing machine by determining how much water to add to the washing
machine based on the volume of laundry present in inner bin 2, the surface
characteristics of the laundry, and dirtiness of the water. Hasegawa H 14—
18. For example, the Examiner has not explained how Neuberger’s method
of determining surface area and numbers of particles would improve or
enhance Hasegawa’s method of washing clothes based on the volume of the
laundry and surface textures of the laundry. Therefore, it is not clear what
intended use and predictable control results are achieved.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—15.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—3 and 5—15.
REVERSED
7