Ex Parte Ashrafzadeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

12718174 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FARHAD ASHRAFZADEH, KEVIN M. CHASE,
BRIAN P. JANKE, and SHREECHARAN KANCHANAVALLY
____________

Appeal 2012-012099
Application 12/718,1741
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is the assignee,
Whirlpool Corporation. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2012-012099
Application 12/718,174

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 9,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
9. A method of dispensing a product from a refrigerator
dispenser assembly including a dispenser well, the method
comprising:
transmitting image data from a camera exposed to the
dispenser well to a controller;
determining the presence of a container within the
dispenser well;
initiating a dispensing event to dispense product from the
dispenser assembly subsequent to determining the presence of
the container within the dispenser well;
monitoring a fill level of product within the container
utilizing the image data; and
varying a rate at which product is dispensed from the
dispenser assembly during the dispensing event.

Rejections
Claims 9–17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Skell (US 6,394,153 B2, iss. May 28, 2002).
Claims 1–8, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Janke (US 6,789,585 B1, iss. Sept. 14, 2004) and Skell.

ANALYSIS
Anticipated by Skell
The Examiner finds Skell discloses “transmitting image data from a
camera (24) . . . to a controller.” Ans. 3. The Appellants contend that
Skell’s element 24 is not a camera, but a receiver that receives transmitted
energy. Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 7, Skell, col. 6, ll. 38–42, col. 8, l. 49–
col. 9, l. 25. The Appellants’ contention is persuasive.
Appeal 2012-012099
Application 12/718,174

3
In response to the Appellants’ contention, the Examiner proffers that
“a ‘camera’ is a device which captures visible image data,” and then
explains how Skell’s receiver 24 captures a light image. Ans. 10. Further,
the Examiner proffers the term “image” is “something visual or falling
within the visible light spectrum” and “[t]o qualify as an image, only a
single visible light is needed.” Ans. 11. In view of the foregoing, the
Examiner determines that Skell’s receiver 24 constitutes a camera that
transmits image data to a controller. See Ans. 11.
The Examiner’s proffered interpretation of the term “camera” is
speculative. Among other things, the Examiner does not cite to any
particular reference source, such as a dictionary, for the term. Further, the
Examiner’s proffered definition of “camera” appears to be less than a
complete definition and more of a characteristic of a camera. As such, the
Examiner’s finding that Skell’s receiver 24 evidences “image data from a
camera,” as recited in claim 9, lacks adequate support.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9, and its
dependent claims, as anticipated by Skell is not sustained.

Obviousness over Janke and Skell
Independent claims 1 and 5 require an optical sensing system
including a camera. The Examiner finds Janke does not disclose an optical
sensing system including a camera, but that Skell does disclose “an optical
sensing system (20, 24, 30 and 32) including a camera (24).” Ans. 7, 8. For
similar reasons as those discussed above, the Examiner’s finding concerning
Skell lacks adequate support.
Appeal 2012-012099
Application 12/718,174

4
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5, and their dependent
claims, as unpatentable over Janke and Skell is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–20.

REVERSED

Klh