Ex Parte Carow

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2011

11233242 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2011)

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.
11/233,242 09/22/2005 James Phillips Carow US20040303 8085
173 7590 10/27/2011
WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
500 RENAISSANCE DRIVE - SUITE 102
ST. JOSEPH, MI 49085
EXAMINER
GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2011 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 JAMES PHILLIPS CAROW
________________

Appeal 2009-011507
Application 11/233,242
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1
decision finally rejecting claims 1-27. The Examiner finally rejects claims 2
1-5, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wakaeya 3
(US 5,050,313, issued Sep. 24, 1991); claims 17 and 18 under § 102(b) as 4
being anticipated by Riddle (US 6,745,495 B1, issued Jun. 8, 2004); claims 5

1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Whirlpool
Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan.
Appeal No. 2009-011507
Application No. 11/233,242

2
6-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wakaeya and 1
Hameed (US 6,995,965 B2, issued Feb. 7, 2006);2 and claims 19-27 under 2
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riddle and Hameed. The Examiner 3
provisionally rejects claims 1-27 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-4
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Casey (US 5
7,020,985 B2, issued Apr. 4, 2006). 6
We REVERSE. 7
Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 8
1. A method of introducing heat for 9
drying clothes in a clothes dryer comprising a 10
drying chamber for holding the clothes, an airflow 11
system for delivering air through the drying 12
chamber, and a heating system for heating the air 13
in the airflow system, the method comprising: 14
determining an airflow rate in the 15
airflow system; and 16
controlling the output of the heating 17
system based on the determined airflow rate. 18
Claim 17 recites an automatic clothes dryer including at least one sensor that 19
senses a parameter of the airflow through the airflow system; and a 20
controller operably coupled to the heater and the at least one sensor for 21
determining an airflow rate through the airflow system from the parameter 22
provided by the at least one sensor and controlling operation of the heater 23
relative to the determined airflow rate through the airflow system. 24

2 We do not address the teachings of Fowler (US 3,905,123, issued Sep.
16, 1975); Sakamoto (US 2005/0034321 A1, publ. Feb. 17, 2005); and
Achenbach (US 2006/0137214 A1, publ. Jun.29, 2006). These references
were first cited in the Response to Arguments section of the Examiner’s
Answer (see Ans. 12) and do not appear in the statement of any rejection on
appeal.
Appeal No. 2009-011507
Application No. 11/233,242

3
The Appellant correctly argues that neither Wakaeya nor Riddle 1
describes determining an airflow rate in an airflow system or controlling the 2
output of a heating system based on the determined airflow rate. (See App. 3
Br. 7-8 and 11-12). The Appellant consistently uses the term “airflow rate” 4
in the Specification to indicate volumetric flow rate. For example, the 5
Specification describes determining airflow rate by techniques such as by 6
using “traditional airflow meters” such as turbines or by subtracting the 7
ambient air pressure from a measured air pressure in the airflow system. 8
(Spec., para. [0027]). These techniques would provide measures of the air 9
speed and the square of the air speed, respectively. Air speed is proportional 10
to, and thereby determines, volumetric flow rate for flow across a fixed area. 11
Where the Appellant wishes to refer to a parameter of the airflow, the 12
Appellant uses the term “parameter of the airflow” in contrast to the term 13
“airflow rate.” (See, e.g., appealed claim 16). In view of the Appellant’s 14
consistent usage of the term “determining airflow rate,” the Examiner’s 15
interpretation of the term as encompassing “determining a characteristic 16
feature of air flowing in motion over a period of time” (Ans. 7-8) is 17
unreasonably broad. (Cf. Reply Br. 2-3 (arguing that the Examiner’s 18
interpretation of the term “airflow rate” is not supported by the 19
Specification)). 20
The Appellant’s Specification explains how the airflow rate in the 21
airflow system is determined by incorporating the disclosure of US Appl’n 22
11/160,433 (filed June 23, 2005; published on December 28, 2006 as Carow 23
et al. (US 2006/0288608 A1); and now abandoned) by reference. (See 24
Spec., para. [0027]). Carow et al. teaches estimating airflow in the inlet of 25
the airflow system using an inlet temperature signal generated by a 26
Appeal No. 2009-011507
Application No. 11/233,242

4
thermistor 76 positioned in the inlet. (Carow et al., paras. [0021] and 1
[0024]). A controller 66 determines the volumetric flow rate as a function of 2
both the inlet temperature signal and the change of the inlet temperature 3
signal over time. (Carow et al., paras. [0025]-[0034]). Similarly, Carow et 4
al. teaches estimating a downstream airflow rate using a temperature signal 5
generated by a thermistor downstream of a blower in the airflow system 6
along with operating parameters of the blower. (Carow et al., para. [0048]). 7
Neither the Specification nor Carow et al. teaches any isomorphic 8
relationship between either temperature or humidity and airflow rate such 9
that determining temperature or humidity alone would determine airflow 10
rate. 11
Wakaeya describes a clothes dryer including a drying chamber 1 for 12
holding clothes 13; an airflow system 6, 7, 11, 12 for delivering air through 13
the drying chamber 1; and a heating system 8, 9, 10 for heating the air in the 14
airflow system 6, 7, 11, 12. (See Wakaeya, col. 9, l. 50 – col. 10, l. 10 and 15
fig. 8). Wakaeya’s clothes dryer also includes a controller 20 for controlling 16
the operation of the heater 8, 9, 10. (Id.) Wakaeya describes a control 17
device 21 which controls the heating system 8, 9, 10 solely on the basis of a 18
temperature T of discharged air sensed by a temperature sensor 27. (See, 19
e.g., Wakaeya, col. 11, ll. 43-45 and fig. 9; see also id., col. 14, l. 30 – col. 20
15, l. 2 and fig. 12). The Examiner fails to provide a sound basis for finding 21
that Wakaeya’s sensing of temperature and humidity determines an airflow 22
rate or that Wakaeya controls the output of a heating system based on a 23
determined airflow rate. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 15 24
and 16 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wakaeya. 25
Appeal No. 2009-011507
Application No. 11/233,242

5
Hameed describes an over-voltage device 128 for limiting the power 1
supplied to a pair of heating elements 118, 120 in a clothes dryer 10. 2
(Hameed, col. 5, ll. 4-16). Hameed describes the heating elements 118, 120 3
as susceptible of either simultaneous or independent control. (Hameed, col. 4
4, l. 51 – col. 5, l. 3; see also Ans. 5). Hameed does not remedy the 5
deficiencies in the teachings of Wakaeya for purposes of the rejection of 6
claims 6-14, which depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of 7
claims 6-14 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wakaeya and 8
Hameed. 9
Riddle also describes a clothes dryer 10 including a drying chamber 10
26 for holding clothes, an airflow system 38, 42, 48, 50 for delivering air 11
through the drying chamber, and a heating system 40 for heating the air in 12
the airflow system. (See Riddle, col. 2, ll. 30-55). Riddle’s clothes dryer 10 13
also includes a temperature sensor 64 operable to produce a signal indicative 14
of a drum inlet air temperature; another temperature sensor 68 operable to 15
produce a signal indicative of a drum outlet temperature in an outlet duct 50; 16
and a pressure sensor 80 operable to produce a signal indicative of air 17
pressure in the outlet duct 50. (Riddle, col. 2, l. 56 – col. 3, l. 3). Riddle 18
teaches the use of a control system 56 and an inverter 66 for controlling a 19
blower motor 54 based on the signals from one or more of the temperature 20
sensor 64, the temperature sensor 68 and the pressure sensor 80. (E.g., 21
Riddle, col. 3, ll. 4-29). 22
The Examiner fails to provide a sound basis for finding that Riddle’s 23
sensing of temperature at two locations and pressure at one location 24
determines an airflow rate or that Riddle controls the output of a heating 25
system based on a determined airflow rate. We do not sustain the rejection 26
Appeal No. 2009-011507
Application No. 11/233,242

6
of claims 17 and 18 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Riddle. Since 1
Hameed fails to remedy these deficiencies in the teachings of Riddle for 2
purposes of the rejection of claims 19-27, we do not sustain the rejection of 3
claims 19-27 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riddle and Hameed. 4
Claim 1 of Casey recites a clothes dryer including a heat pump; a 5
drum; an inlet to the drum fluidly connecting the heat pump to the drum; 6
first and second outlets; and a fan for generating a flow of air from the heat 7
pump into the drum through the inlet and out of the drum through the first 8
and second outlets. Each of the first and second outlets is covered by a grill 9
in the drum. The first and second outlets are spaced from each other and 10
from the inlet. The Examiner does not persuasively explain why the grills 11
covering the first and second outlets might have suggested to one of ordinary 12
skill in the art to add a controller for controlling the output of a heating 13
system based on a determined airflow rate. (See Ans. 5-6 and 16-17). We 14
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-27 as being unpatentable over claims 15
1-20 of Casey under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. 16
17
DECISION 18
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27. 19
20
REVERSED 21
22
Klh 23