Ex Parte B¿sing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12933092 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/933,092 09/17/2010
46726 7590 09/23/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johannes Blsing
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2007P03249WOUS 6337
EXAMINER
BELL, SPENCER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES BUSING, STEPHAN LUTZ, BRUNO REITER,
MICHAEL ROSENBAUER, and PEDRO SANCHO
Appeal2015-004053
Application 12/933,092
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 24--46. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a water-bearing domestic
appliance, such as a dishwasher or a washing machine (Spec. i-fi-1 1, 2). The
appliance includes a water diverter that controls the distribution of washing
liquor (Spec. i12). The diverter is carried by a carrier element to which
element an actuator, such as an electric motor, is fastened (Spec. i-fi-13, 4, 6).
Appellants' carrier element comprises a cast part, wherein lines, such as
electrical lines, are embedded within the cast part (Spec. i-fi-1 7, 8). The lines
Appeal2015-004053
Application 12/933,092
are provided for actuating the actuator (id.). The cast part embedded lines
are surrounded by molding material (integrated within the carrier element
casting) such that the lines are exposed only at contact points (Spec. i-fi-1 9,
10, 27; Fig. 3).
Claim 24, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative and
reproduced below:
24. A water-bearing domestic appliance, comprising:
a water diverter having a carrier element, the water
diverter to distribute washing liquor; and
an actuator fastened to the carrier element; wherein the
carrier element includes lines embedded in a cast part for
actuating the actuator, wherein a molded material surrounds the
lines, the lines exposed from the molded material only at
contact points of the lines.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Zinn et al.
Baccanini et al.
Belaunzaran et al.
us 5,064,973
DE 102 46 407 Al
EP 1728461 Al
Nov. 12, 1991
Apr. 30, 2003
Dec. 6, 2006
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 24--28, 35, 36, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Belaunzaran. Claims 24--46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Baccanini ("Baccanini"). Claim
28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Belaunzaran or Baccanini, each in view of Zinn.
We reverse the stated rejections. Our reasoning follows.
2
Appeal2015-004053
Application 12/933,092
For each of the stated rejections, the Examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case establishing the non-patentability of the
rejected claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Anticipation Rejection
In order for the Examiner to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation, the Examiner must establish where each and every
element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by claim 24, is found
in a single prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Here, the Examiner has not established that either Belaunzaran or
Baccanini describes an apparatus corresponding to the claimed apparatus, by
specifying how the cited portions of Belaunzaran or Baccanini describe an
apparatus that includes elements/features corresponding to all of the recited
elements/features of and arranged as required by claim 24. In this regard,
giving claim 24 its broadest reasonable construction at it would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of the
Specification, we determine that the water diverter carrier element is
required to include lines that are embedded in a cast part such that the cast
part embedded lines are surrounded by molding material (integrated within
the carrier element casting) such that the lines are exposed from the molded
material [of the cast part] only at contact points of the lines as essentially
urged by Appellants (App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2; Spec. i-fi-17, 9, 27; Figs. 3-
4).
3
Appeal2015-004053
Application 12/933,092
Consequently, we determine that the Examiner has not established
that the combination of components 18 and 12 together with elements 33-35
of Figure 5 of Belaunzaran describes a carrier element that includes lines
embedded in a cast part such that the lines are surrounded by the cast part
molded material and exposed from the molded material (cast part) only at
contact points of the cast part as required by Appellants' claim 24 (Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4--6). Moreover, we determine that the Examiner has not
established that the combination of body 3 and carrier element 25 of
Baccanini describes a carrier element that includes lines embedded in a cast
part such that the lines are surrounded by the cast part molded material and
exposed from the molded material (cast part) only at contact points of the
cast part as required by Appellants' claim 24 (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7).
In this regard, and in responding to Appellants' arguments in the
Answer, the Examiner makes it apparent that both of the Examiner's
anticipation rejections hinge on an overly broad construction of Appellants'
claim 24. For example and in applying the cited prior art in the anticipation
rejections, the Examiner maintains that the term "surrounds" as used in
claim 24 merely requires that "any molded material must be on every side of
or extending around the lines" and the Examiner maintains that "[ s ]uch
molded material is not limited to the material of a cast part" (Ans. 4).
Contrary to the Examiner's interpretation, however, claim 24 makes it
plain that it is the carrier element cast part in which the lines are embedded,
which cast part the recited "a molded material surrounds the lines" limitation
relates to and to which cast part "the molded material" recited in the
limitation "the lines exposed from the molded material only at contact
4
Appeal2015-004053
Application 12/933,092
points" relates back to as evident by a reading of claim 24 as a whole in light
of the Specification.
Therefore, the Examiner has not applied either Belaunzaran or
Baccanini to claim 24 as properly construed by giving claim 24 its broadest
reasonable construction as it would have been understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art when read as a whole in light of the subject Specification.
Consequently, the Examiner has not carried the burden to establish that
either Belaunzaran or Baccanini provides an anticipating disclosure for the
claimed subject matter.
In sum, the evidence of record supports Appellants' arguments and
indicates that the Examiner has not carried the burden to establish that either
Belaunzaran or Baccanini describes an apparatus wherein each and every
element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by claim 24, is found
such that either of these applied references anticipates claim 24, the sole
independent claim is subject to the anticipation rejections.
It follows that we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejections.
Obviousness Rejection
Dependent claim 28, which is subject to the obviousness rejection
maintained by the Examiner, requires the features of independent claim 24.
In the stated obviousness rejection, the Examiner addresses the additional
feature required by dependent claim 28 without further specifying how the
applied references would have suggested the features of independent claim
24, which are included in claim 28 by virtue of its dependency on claim 24
(App. Br. 7-8). For reasons discussed above, the Examiner's separate
rejection of dependent claim 28 falls short because the Examiner has not
5
Appeal2015-004053
Application 12/933,092
articulated how the obviousness position advocated for the additional feature
added by claim 28 overcomes the deficiencies in the base anticipation
rejection upon which the obvious rejection of claim 28 is predicated (Final
Act. 10-11).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection on this
appeal record.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
6