Ex Parte Batcher

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 13, 2008

10288352 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte THOMAS J. BATCHER
___________

Appeal No. 2007-4222
Application No. 10/288,352
Technology Center 3600
___________

Decided: February 13, 2008
___________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, HUBERT C. LORIN and DAVID B. WALKER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 60-64, 66, 67, 69-75, 77-
84, 86, 87, 89-93, 95 and 96. Claims 65, 68, 76, 85, 88 and 94, which are all of the
other pending claims, stand withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner.
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims a method and computer program storage medium for
monitoring the operation of a warewasher in which each rack has a unique
identifier. Claim 60 is illustrative:
Appeal 2007-4222
Application 10/288,352
60. A method for monitoring operations of a warewasher over a
predetermined period of time, wherein one or more racks are used to carry one or
more articles through the warewasher, the method comprising:
associating a unique identifier (ID) to each rack used to carry one or more
articles through the warewasher, wherein each rack comprises an identification tag
specifying the unique ID assigned to that rack;
reading a unique ID assigned to a first rack as an identification tag of the
first rack is detected while the first rack is being provided to the warewasher; and
communicating the unique ID assigned to the first rack to a remote computer
for storage in a database in association with a time reference indicative of a time at
which the first rack was detected while being provided to the warewasher.

THE REFERENCES
Bailey US 5,038,807 Aug. 13, 1991
Reber US 5,715,555 Feb. 10, 1998
Thomas US 6,463,940 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Värpiö US 6,530,996 B2 Mar. 11, 2003
Vraa US 6,710,891 B1 Mar. 23, 2004

THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69-72, 74,
77, 78, 80-83, 86, 87, 89-92, 95 and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Thomas;
claims 60, 61, 63, 67, 70-72, 74, 78, 81-83, 87, 90-92 and 96 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Värpiö in view of Bailey; claims 60-64, 66, 67, 70-75, 77,
78, 81-87, 90-93, 95 and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reber in view of Värpiö
and Bailey; claims 69, 80 and 89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reber in view of
Värpiö, Bailey and Vraa; claims 62, 64, 66, 73, 75, 77, 84, 86, 93 and 95 under
2
Appeal 2007-4222
Application 10/288,352
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Värpiö in view of Bailey and Reber; and claims 69, 80 and
89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Värpiö in view of Bailey and Vraa.1
OPINION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections.
We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 60, 71, 81 and
90. Those claims require a unique identifier associated with (claims 60 and 81) or
assigned to (claims 71 and 90) each rack.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
For a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), all of the
elements of the claim must be found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic &
Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner argues that Thomas discloses at column 3, lines 19 and 20 a
rack with a molded identification tag that is uniquely addressed to indicate the type
of articles in the rack (Ans. 4, 10). That portion of Thomas discloses (col. 3, ll. 18-
21): “This transponder 23 can be pre-programmed with unique identifying
information, such as an identifier value indicating the type of rack being used, i.e.,
a rack designated for cups, plates, silverware, etc.” Thus, Thomas’s identifier does
not identify the rack but, rather, identifies the type of articles in the rack.2

1 The Examiner omits from the rejections, apparently inadvertently, claim 79 which
requires that “the identification tag for the first rack is affixed to an outer surface of
the first rack.” That omission is of no significance since all rejections of claim 71,
from which claim 79 depends, are reversed.
2 Other portions of Thomas where the identifier is disclosed as identifying the type
of articles in the rack are the abstract, column 1, lines 55-56, column 2, lines 25-
26, and column 2, line 66 to column 3, line 2.
3
Appeal 2007-4222
Application 10/288,352
The Examiner has not established that Thomas discloses racks which each
have a unique identifier. Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation over Thomas.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner argues that Värpiö discloses an identification tag “uniquely
addressed to indicate the type of articles held in said rack” (Ans. 5). That is not
what the Appellant’s claims require, which is a unique identifier for a rack, not an
identifier for the type of articles in a rack. The Examiner argues that “Varpio ‘996
does contain unique identification of racks so that the racks are distinguishable
from one another (column 1, lines 53-55, column 2, lines 61-63)” (Ans. 10). The
Examiner apparently intends to refer to column 1, lines 61 to 63 instead of column
2, lines 61-63. The portions of Värpiö relied upon by the Examiner disclose:
The method of the invention is characterized in that there are different
types of items to be washed, distinguishable from one another, and that said
types are identified using identifying sensors arranged to the washing
apparatus …. [col. 1, ll. 52-55]
* * *
The washing apparatus of the invention is characterized in that the
washing apparatus is arranged to carry out the washing of items to be
washed, which items are of different types distinguishable from one another
and that said types are arranged to be identified with identifying sensors
arranged to the washing apparatus, and that the result of the identification
allows a control item of the washing apparatus to select the appropriate wash
and/or rinse programme for the item concerned. [col. 1, ll. 59-67]

Those portions of Värpiö do not disclose uniquely identifying a rack but, rather,
disclose identifying the type of articles in a rack.
The Examiner points out that the Appellants’ claim language “one or more
racks” includes one rack, and argues that at least the first rack introduced into
Värpiö’s warewasher always contains a unique identifier (Ans. 10-11). The
4
Appeal 2007-4222
Application 10/288,352
Examiner has not pointed out where Värpiö discloses, or would have rendered
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, a warewasher having only
one rack. Even if only one rack is initially introduced into Värpiö’s warewasher,
that rack would not have an identifier unique to it. The identifier merely would
identify the type of articles in the rack (col. 1, ll. 52-67).
Thus, the Examiner has not established that Värpiö discloses, or would have
rendered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, a unique identifier
for each rack.
The Examiner relies upon Reber for a disclosure of attaching an electronic
tag to each item washed, Bailey for a disclosure of timestamps for warewasher
events, and Vraa for a disclosure of identification tags attached to items by
molding (Br. 5-7). The Examiner does not rely upon Reber, Bailey or Vraa for any
disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Värpiö as to a unique identifier for each
rack.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention claimed in any of the Appellants’ claims.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69-72, 74, 77, 78, 80-83, 86, 87,
89-92, 95 and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Thomas, claims 60, 61, 63, 67, 70-
72, 74, 78, 81-83, 87, 90-92 and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Värpiö in view of
Bailey, claims 60-64, 66, 67, 70-75, 77, 78, 81-87, 90-93, 95 and 96 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reber in view of Värpiö and Bailey, claims 69, 80 and 89
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reber in view of Värpiö, Bailey and Vraa, claims 62,
64, 66, 73, 75, 77, 84, 86, 93 and 95 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Värpiö in view of
Bailey and Reber, and claims 69, 80 and 89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Värpiö in
view of Bailey and Vraa are reversed.
5
Appeal 2007-4222
Application 10/288,352
REVERSED

JRG

SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
1625 RADIO DRIVE
SUITE 300
WOODBURY, MN 55125

6