Ex Parte Boztas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12447967 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/447,967 01/25/2010 Onur Boztas 101670-0417293 8302
20350 7590 03/02/2017
KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P
EXAMINER
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
CORMIER, DAVID G
Suite 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Atlanta, UA 4U4UV 1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ONUR BOZTAS, ERMAN CEVIKKALP,
and GOKHAN OZGUREL
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner2 to reject claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10-18 of
Application 12/447,967. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a washing machine including
an ultraviolet light source inside the cleaning agent chamber, for eliminating
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Arcelik Anonim Sirketi.
App. Br. 2.
2 Final Action dated April 9, 2014 (“Final Act.”) 3—8.
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
microorganisms such as mold. Appeal Brief dated Feb. 27, 2015 (“App.
Br.”) 6. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A washing machine (1) comprising a tub (2) wherein a
washing process is carried out and a chamber (4) for placing
the cleaning agents and one or more light sources (6) are
disposed inside the chamber (4), partially or entirely
illuminating the inside of the chamber (4) and eliminating
microorganisms in the chamber (4) by emitting ultraviolet
radiation when turned on and wherein the chamber (4)
further comprises a cleaning agent dispenser (3) having at
least one cubicle wherein liquid and/or powder cleaning
agents are placed, to be delivered to the tub (2) and a
distributor (5) disposed on the cleaning agent dispenser (3)
that directs water received from the main supply to the
cleaning agent dispenser (3).
App. Br. 18, Claims Appx.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
2. Claims 1, 7, and 11—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Choi.3
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Choi.
3 Choi, KR 2003-0045446 published June 11, 2003 (“Choi”). Citations
herein are to the machine translation of record.
2
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Choi and Kim.4
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Choi and Sharpe.5
6. Claims 17—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Choi and Femholz.6
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants do not address the § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claim 7.7 Accordingly we summarily affirm the rejection. See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure §1205.02 (2005) (“If a ground of rejection
stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground
of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).
Anticipation Rejection
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Choi’s detergent box housing 76 and
detergent box 78 correspond respectively to the “cleaning agent dispenser”
and “at least one cubicle wherein liquid and/or powder cleaning agents are
4 Kim, US 2005/0150528 A1 published July 14, 2005.
5 Sharpe, US 3,702,069 issued November 7, 1972.
6 Femholz et al., US 4,569,781 issued Febmary 11, 1986 (“Femholz”).
7 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellant are
advised to consider applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, to
the claim term “the cleaning agents” in claim 1, in particular whether that
term has the requisite antecedent basis.
3
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
placed” recited in claim 1. Final Act. 116. The Examiner further finds that
Choi’s case 52, cover 68, and top cover 72 together correspond to a
“chamber” as recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellants argue that Choi does not anticipate claim 1 because it does
not disclose “one or more light sources are disposed inside the chamber,
partially or entirely illuminating the inside of the chamber” or a “cleaning
agent dispenser having at least one cubicle.” App. Br. 10-12. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Choi’s light source 80 “does not illuminate the so-
called chamber (52, 68, and 72), but only might illuminate the so-called tub
56) and so-called cleaning agent dispenser (76, 78) due to the reflector (82).”
App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Based on
the Examiner’s interpretation of “chamber,” which Appellants do not dispute
in their argument relating to claim 1, Choi’s light source 80 illuminates parts
of the washing machine that are inside the chamber, because Choi’s chamber
is formed by the outermost case and cover. See Ans. 2—3. Appellants’
argument that light source 80 might only illuminate tub 56 or dispenser 76,
even if correct, does not demonstrate reversible error in the rejection because
those parts of Choi’s washing machine are nonetheless inside the chamber.
As to Appellants’ argument concerning the “cleaning agent dispenser
having at least one cubicle,” Appellants merely argue, without explanation,
that Choi does not show those elements. As the Examiner explains,
however, the Specification does not provide a special definition of “at least
one cubicle” nor does the claim language define its structure in a way that is
patentably distinguishable from Choi’s detergent box 78. Ans. 2. Further,
detergent box 78 and detergent box housing 76 are where cleaning agents
4
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
are placed. Id. Therefore, Appellants have not demonstrated reversible
error in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites “a light carrier that
is disposed between the one or more light sources (6) and the chamber (4)
..App. Br. 18—19 (Claims Appx). The Examiner finds that Choi’s
reflector 82 adjacent to light source 80 corresponds to “a light carrier” as
recited in claim 7. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that Choi’s reflector is not
a light carrier because it does not carry light, but merely reflects it. App. Br.
13. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Specification does not provide a special definition of “light carrier” nor does
the claim language define its structure. Choi’s reflector 82 performs the
claimed function of transmitting radiation emitted by light source 80 into the
chamber with minimal loss, as discussed above, and thus can be said to carry
light. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 1116
Although presented under separate headings, Appellants rely on the
same arguments for these dependent claims as they present for claim 1.
App. Br. 13—14. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of these claims for the
same reasons as discussed above.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants present argument only against the rejection of claim 5;
with regard to claims 8, 10, and 17—18, Appellants rely on their arguments
against the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we need only
discuss claim 5.
5
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the
chamber (4) is produced of an optically transparent or semi-transparent
material.” App. Br. 18 (Claims Appx). The Examiner finds that “[u]nder an
alternate interpretation of Choi, placing the ultraviolet lamp (80) inside the
detergent box would read on having a light source inside an optically
transparent chamber. Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange Choi’s lamp
inside the detergent box because “[s]uch rearrangement would predictably
preserve the function of the lamp (80) of sterilizing water in the detergent
box (80) and disinfecting the washing tub (54).” Final Act. 5, citing Choi
machine translation, p. 4, H 2, 5.
The Examiner’s determination of obviousness of claim 5 is implicitly
based on finding that Choi’s detergent box housing 76 corresponds to a
“chamber” as recited in claim 1. This is inconsistent, however, with the
Examiner’s finding in connection with the anticipation rejection discussed
above, that Choi’s outermost case and top covers correspond to a “chamber.”
Final Act. 116. Because of this inconsistency, and the dependency of claim
5 from claim 1, the Examiner cannot show that each element of claim 5 is
met by Choi, i.e., Choi’s detergent box housing 76 cannot correspond both
to a “cleaning agent dispenser” in claim 1 and a “chamber” in claim 5.
Therefore, the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 5.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claim 7 under 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 11—16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Choi.
6
Appeal 2016-000056
Application 12/447,967
We reverse the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Choi.
We affirm the rejections of claims 8, 10, and 17—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7