Ex Parte Becker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201712085070 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017) 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. 12/085,070 05/15/2008 Wolfgang Becker PTB-6032-86 5864 23117 7590 09/27/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER ZEC, FILIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2017 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 WOLFGANG BECKER and MICHAELA MALISI Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,0701 Technology Center 3700 Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 6—10, 14—17, and 21—31.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a refrigerator with an interior surrounded by a thermally insulated housing, in which a condensation water conduit passing through the housing includes a siphon. Spec. 1:2-A. Claim 6, 1 According to Appellants, the real part in interest is BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERAETE GMBH. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 1—5, 11—13, and 18—20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,070 reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 6. A refrigerator comprising: a housing defining, at least in part, an interior, the housing having a bottom wall and a vertical wall, each of the bottom wall and the vertical wall having an inner skin, an outer skin, and a thermal insulation layer between the inner skin and the outer skin; a machine compartment separated from the interior by the housing; and a condensation water conduit structured to join the interior with the machine compartment in fluid communication through the housing to direct a flow of condensation water and the condensation water conduit including a siphon, wherein the siphon is positioned between the inner skin and the outer skin of the vertical wall such that the siphon is completely surrounded by the thermal insulation layer. Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Morrissey Rovira-Adame Nijhof Yanagi US 2,962,337 US 2003/0097855 A1 US 2005/0223485 A1 JP2001-153534 (A) Nov. 29, 1960 May 29, 2003 Oct. 13, 2005 Aug. 6, 2001 REJECTIONS (I) Claims 6, 8—10, 14, 23, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morrissey and Nijhof. (II) Claims 7, 15, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morrissey, Nijhof, and Yanagi. 2 Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,070 (III) Claims 16, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morrissey, Nijhof, Yanagi, and Rovira-Adame. (IV) Claims 26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morrissey, Nijhof, and Rovira-Adame. OPINION Rejection (I) The Examiner finds Morrissey discloses most of the elements recited in independent claims 6 and 23, including a siphon, but fails to disclose that the siphon is positioned between the inner skin and outer skin of a wall such that the siphon is completely surrounded by thermal insulation as required by both of these claims. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner finds that Nijhof discloses a draining system with a siphon 14 surrounded by thermal insulation 30 that slows down the heating and evaporation. Id. (citing Nijhof Fig. 10). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement in Morrissey “such that the siphon is completely surrounded by the thermal insulation layer, as taught by Nijhof, in order to slow down the heating of the stench-trap,[3] and particularly the evaporation of the water in the water seal, for forming an adequate stench sealing during a longer period of time.” Id. at 4—5. 3 Morrissey does not describe a “stench trap,” but describes a “trap or reverse bend” that “prevents moisture from the water evaporating in the drain pan from migrating upwardly through the tube and back into the compartment 3 where it would condense on the bottom of the drip trough 11 and drip onto the contents of the compartment 3.” Morrissey 2:61—67 (emphasis omitted). For consistency, we use the term stench trap to describe this structure. 3 Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,070 Appellants contend that Nijhof fails to disclose that the structure relied upon by the Examiner for a siphon surrounded by insulation is completely surrounded by insulation. See Appeal Br. 7—9 (citing Nijhof Fig. 10,76, 78—80). Rather, Appellants contend, Nijhof merely describes insulation around the side walls and the bottom of the siphon. Appeal Br. 8. In response, the Examiner states, “[t]he siphon (14, FIG. 10) clearly must have an intake end in order to receive the fluid. This intake (at 91, FIG. 10) is not insulated, however, this intake is also not interpreted as the siphon.” Ans. 17. The Examiner also states, “Morrissey already shows insulation above the siphon; locating the siphon in the vertical wall would only ensure insulation to be more directly above the siphon.” Ans. 17—18. In reply, Appellants assert that their argument is not that the component in Nijhof identified by reference number 91 is the siphon4, but that edge 14 was cited by the Examiner as part of the siphon, and the area above edge 14 is not insulated. See Reply Br. 2. We reproduce Figure 10 of Nijhof below. 4 Nijhof refers to this component as a “cover wall.” See, e.g., Nijhof 175. 4 Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,070 Figure 10 of Nijhof is a cross-sectional view of a stench trap, looking in the longitudinal direction, wherein insulation material 31 is outside of walls 3, 4, and 5 and inside of walls 32, 42, and 52. Nijhof H 77—81. Although Figure 10 of Nijhof depicts a variant of the embodiment depicted in Figure 2 (Nijhof H 53, 54, 59), Figure 2 is instructive as to the placement of edge 14 in relation to the opening (“intake end”) of the siphon, and we therefore reproduce Figure 2 below. Figure 2 of Nijhof is a cross-sectional view of a stench trap taken in a direction perpendicular to the one shown in Figure 10 and depicts edge 14 at the opening or starting portion of the stench trap and edge 11 at an end portion of the stench trap. See Nijhof H 53, 59, 61. Figures 2 and 10 support Appellants’ contention that the area above the siphon in Nijhof is not insulated. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 4—5), Figures 2 and 10 of Nijhof also demonstrate that the entire area above edges 11 and 14, which define the stench trap in Nijhof, is uninsulated. Indeed, Figures 2 and 10 show that no part of the top of the stench trap or the top of remainder of the channel in Nijhof is insulated. In other words, in Nijhof, it is not just the intake to the stench trap that is uninsulated. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 23 is based on an unsupported finding of fact, 5 Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,070 specifically, that Nijhof discloses a siphon “completely” surrounded by insulation. See Final Act. 4—5. As to the Examiner’s finding, in the Answer, that “Morrissey already shows insulation above the siphon; locating the siphon in the vertical wall would only ensure insulation to be more directly above the siphon” (Ans. 17—18), any insulation depicted above siphon (trap 20) in Morrissey is separated from trap 20 by a large space, and, as Appellants assert (Appeal Br. 10), there is no indication that Morrissey is concerned with protecting trap 20 from heat. Thus, the insulation that is already located “above” trap 20 provides no insulating effect to trap 20 in relation to compartment 6 in which trap 20 is located, and, therefore, would not be considered to surround trap 20 or contribute to surrounding trap 20 as required by the independent claims. Regarding the Examiner’s proposed placement of trap 20 in the vertical wall, the Examiner does not explain adequately how repositioning trap 20 within the vertical wall in Morrissey would be implemented in combination with the teaching in Nijhof of insulating bottom and sidewalls of a stench trap. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 23 and claims 8—10, 14, 27, and 28, which depend therefrom, as unpatentable over Morrissey and Nijhof. Rejections (II)—(IV) The Examiner’s use of the disclosure of Yanagi and Rovira-Adame in Rejections (II)—(IV) does not remedy the deficiency in Rejection (I) discussed above. See Final Act. 12—17. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also do not sustain Rejections (II)—(IV). 6 Appeal 2015-006046 Application 12/085,070 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6—10, 14—17, and 21—31 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation