Ex Parte Colombo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201813242282 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) 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. 13/242,282 09/23/2011 DAVIDE COLOMBO SUB-00178-US-NP 2377 173 7590 02/02/2018 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 EXAMINER NGUYEN, BAO D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DA VIDE COLOMBO and DANIELE MARTINELLO Appeal 2016-001267 Application 13/242,2821 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. Claims 16 and 19 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. appellants identify Whirlpool Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2016-001267 Application 13/242,282 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for determining the residual moisture content of laundry items during a drying phase in a drier, particularly an household drier, the laundry items being dried in a drying chamber with heated air, the method comprising the steps of: measuring a temperature related to the temperature of the laundry items; controlling an instantaneous power supplied to a heater heating said air through a power control signal in order to regulate the temperature related to the temperature of the laundry items to a predetermined set point temperature; operating the heater at a first power level corresponding to a first non-zero amount of instantaneous power supplied to the heater; and operating the heater at one or more lower power levels, corresponding to reduced, nonzero amounts of instantaneous power supplied to the heater, based on the temperature related to the temperature of the laundry items; characterized in that the method comprises the step of estimating the moisture content of the laundry items by using a relationship based on the amount of instantaneous power supplied to the heater. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1—8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of Heater et al. (US 6,199,300 Bl; Mar. 31, 2001), Palfrey et al. (US 4,112,589; Sept. 12, 1978), and Cardoso (US 4,827,627; May 9, 1989). Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of Heater, Palfrey, Cardoso, and Tomasi et al. (US 2007/0163098 Al; July 19, 2007). 2 Appeal 2016-001267 Application 13/242,282 Claims 14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combination of Heater, Palfrey, Cardoso, and Pezier et al. (US 2006/0272177 Al; Dec. 7, 2006). ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 13 recites controlling or regulating a temperature to a predetermined set point temperature. According to Appellants, a person of ordinary skill would understand a set point temperature to be the temperature a system is designed to maintain, like the temperature setting of a home heating system. Reply Br. 5; accord Appeal Br. 10. Applying that interpretation, Appellants argue that “when [Appellants’] claims recite regulating a temperature for laundry items to a predetermined set point temperature, this requires that the dryer attempt to maintain the temperature related to the temperature of the laundry items at a particular value, i.e., the set point temperature.” Reply Br. 5. The Examiner responds that Appellants’ interpretation assumes limitations not recited in the claims, and the Examiner states that “[t]here is no requirement in the claim that the temperature is maintained at or near any particular value.” Ans. 8. Contrary to Appellants’interpretation, the Examiner interprets the claims to include Heater’s disclosures of beginning a dryer’s heating element at full power until the exhaust air temperature reaches a first predetermined temperature, then reducing power by half until the dryer measures a humidity below 20%, and then applying full power until the exhaust temperature reaches a second predetermined temperature. Ans. 8—9 (citing Heater Figs. 2-4, col. 2,1. 63—col. 5,1. 12). 3 Appeal 2016-001267 Application 13/242,282 We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in interpreting the independent claims to include the cited disclosures of Heater. Claim 1, for example, recites “controlling an instantaneous power supplied to a heater . . . to regulate the temperature ... to a predetermined set point temperature.” Consistent with Appellants’ interpretation, Appellants’ Specification describes the method step of “regulating” as including “continuously evaluating [the temperature difference] and varying power to “control the heater for heating the air used to dry the laundry articles at a temperature close to the set point temperature” such that the air temperature reaches a steady state close to the set point temperature and “becomes substantially constant.” Spec. ^fl[ 24—27. Reading the plain language of claim 1 in light of Appellants’ Specification, we agree with the Appellants that controlling the instantaneous power supply “to regulate the temperature ... to a predetermined set point temperature” requires maintaining the temperature at or near the predetermined set point temperature. Independent claims 8 and 13 include equivalent limitations. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that Heater teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 13. 4 Appeal 2016-001267 Application 13/242,282 DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation