Ex Parte Bang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2012

10721179 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

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.
10/721,179 11/26/2003 Jong Chul Bang K-0586 6624
34610 7590 01/26/2012
KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. Box 8638
Reston, VA 20195
EXAMINER
RINEHART, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JONG CHUL BANG
____________

Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jong Chul Bang (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 37, 38, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sherrill1 (US 5,925,273, iss. Jul. 20,
1999) and Drews (US 4,700,495, iss. Oct. 20, 1987); and claims 10-13, 15,
16, 18, 21, 23-29, 31, 32, 39, and 41 under 35 U. S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sherrill2. Appellant cancelled claims 5, 8, 14, 17, 19, 22,
30 and 33-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter is directed to a dryer for drying an object,
such as laundered clothing, to be dried by blowing hot air generated from a
heater assembly into a space, such as a drum, holding the object (Spec. 2),
and to a heater assembly for a dryer. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A dryer, comprising:
a cabinet;
a drum provided in the cabinet and in
rotational communication with a motor; and
a heater assembly coupled to the drum,
comprising:
a heater case having an air passage
formed therein;

1 The Answer intermittently refers to the reference as “Sherril,” but we
assume these references to be a typographical error and that the correct
reference name of “Sherrill” was intended.
2 The Examiner’s rejections on pages 7-10 of the Answer and on pages 10-
13 of the Answer have been consolidated into one rejection since both
rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sherrill.
Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179

3
a plate that partitions the air passage
into an upper passage and a lower passage; and
independent first and second coil
arrays provided in the air passage, wherein the first
coil array crosses the plate multiple times such that
a plurality of first coils of the first coil array are
alternately positioned in the upper and lower
passages, and the second coil array crosses the
plate multiple times such that a plurality of second
coils of the second coil array are alternately
positioned in the upper and lower passages,
wherein the first and second coils positioned in the
upper passage form an alternating pattern in the
upper passage, and the first and second coils
positioned in the lower passage form an alternating
pattern in the lower passage such that each of the
plurality of first coils is positioned substantially
directly across from a corresponding second coil of
the plurality of second coils on the opposite side of
the plate.

App. Br. 40.
Independent claim 37 is directed to a dryer and calls for, inter alia,
substantially the same subject matter as recited in the last paragraph of claim
1, and additionally calls for the upper and lower portions of each of the first
and second coil arrays to be positioned along centerlines of the upper and
lower passages, respectively. App. Br. 46-47.
Independent claims 10 and 24 will be discussed infra.

OPINION
Obviousness based on Sherrill and Drews
The Examiner finds that the combination of Sherrill and Drews
discloses the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 37 substantially as
Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179

4
claimed, but fails to disclose what is recited in the last paragraphs of
independent claims 1 and 37. Ans. 3-6. However, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the
heater assembly of the dryer of the combination of Sherrill and Drews by
rearranging the first and second coils of the first and second coil arrays to be
positioned as recited in independent claims 1 and 37, because “shifting the
location of parts of a device and duplicating working parts of a device
involves only routine skill in the art.” Ans. 6-7.
Appellant contends that the last paragraph of each of claims 1 and 37
recites both structural and functional features that are not disclosed by either
Sherrill or Drews, alone or in combination, and would not have been an
obvious matter of design choice. Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner’s proposed modification of
the dryer from the combination of Sherrill and Drews is not simply shifting
the location of parts of a device and duplicating working parts of a device,
but rather would require a complete redesign as suggested by Appellant (see
Reply Brief 5). Minor differences between the prior art and a claimed
device may be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the contrary (see
In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)), but in the present case, the
structural and functional features recited in the last paragraphs of
independent claims 1 and 37 are not minor differences.
Moreover, although the Examiner notes that Sherrill’s heater
assembly is capable of heating air in both the upper and lower passages
when only one of the first and second heater elements 10a, 10b is turned on
and the Examiner alleges that Sherrill’s heater assembly functions the same
as Appellant’s claimed heater assembly, we do not agree. A finding of
Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179

5
obvious design choice is precluded in this instance because Appellant has set
forth reasons why the difference between the claimed invention and the prior
art would result in a different function. See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to
set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and
the prior art would result in a different function). More particularly,
Appellant’s Specification explains that the arrangement of alternating first
and second coils in both the upper and lower passages prevents the heater
case from being locally heated even if only one of the first and second coil
arrays is powered. Spec. 3 and 10. Appellant’s claimed arrangement also
allows for efficient drying by operating only a single one of the first and
second coil arrays and optimally performing heat-exchange with the flowing
air since air around the turned-off coil array is still heated. Spec. 3, 8 and
10-11. With the design of Sherrill’s first and second heater elements 10a,
10b, air around the turned-off coil would not be heated thus reducing dryer
performance as non-heated air would be sent to the drum. The design of
Sherrill’s heater elements 10a, 10b would also fail to prevent local heating of
the heater case. Since Appellant has set forth a reason why the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different
function, we determine that the Examiner’s modification of the dryer
resulting from the combination of Sherrill and Drews to have the subject
matter of the last paragraphs of independent claims 1 and 37 would not be an
obvious matter of design choice.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 37, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sherrill and Drews.
Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179

6
Obviousness based on Sherrill
Independent claim 10 is directed to a heater assembly for a dryer and
calls for, inter alia, each of a plurality of first coils and a plurality of second
coils are alternately positioned in the upper and lower passages of the air
passage of the heater case such that the first and second coils of the plurality
of first and second coils, respectively, in both the upper and lower passages
form an alternating pattern, and each of the plurality of first coils is
positioned substantially directly across from a corresponding second coil of
the plurality of second coils on the opposite side of the plate dividing the air
passage in the heater case into upper and lower passages. App. Br. 42.
Independent claim 24 is also directed to a heater assembly for a dryer
and calls for, inter alia, a first coil array including a plurality of first coils
having a plurality of upper first coils positioned in the upper passage and a
plurality of lower first coils positioned in the lower passage, a second coil
array including a plurality of second coils having a plurality of upper second
coils positioned in the upper passage and a plurality of lower second coils
positioned in the lower passage, the upper and lower first coils disposed
between two upper and lower second coils so as to form an alternating
pattern. App. Br. 44-45.
The Examiner finds that Sherrill fails to disclose the subject matter of
independent claims 10 and 24 as set forth supra; however, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
modify the heater assembly of Sherrill to have the subject matter of
independent claims 10 and 24, “because [Appellant] has not disclosed that
the number or location provides an advantage, is used for a particular
purpose or solves a stated problem.” Ans. 7-9. The Examiner also
Appeal 2009-014261
Application 10/721,179

7
concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected
[Appellant’s] invention to perform equally well with either the quantity and
location of Sherril[l] since shifting the location of parts of a device or
changing a quantity involves only routine skill in the art.” Ans. 9-10.
Appellant contends that each of independent claims 10 and 24 recite
both structural and functional features that are not disclosed by either
Sherrill or Drews, alone or in combination, and would not have been an
obvious matter of design choice. Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. For the same reasons as discussed supra in
the “Obviousness based on Sherrill and Drews” section, the Examiner’s
modification of the heater assembly of Sherrill to have the subject matter of
independent claims 10 and 24 would not have been an obvious matter of
design choice.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10-13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23-29, 31, 32, 39, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Sherrill.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-13,
15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-29, 31, 32, and 37-41.

REVERSED

Klh