14179313 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

Ex Parte Cookson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 2018

14179313 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/179,313 02/12/2014 25231 7590 05/30/2018 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP 8055 East Tufts A venue, Suite 450 Suite 450 Denver, CO 80237 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Adam Roy Cookson 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. 50832-00005 1720 EXAMINER LAU,JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2018 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): ptomail@mfblaw.com ptomail@mfblaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM ROY COOKSON and ERIC ANDREW JONES Appeal2017-008843 Application 14/179,313 Technology Center 3700 Before: DANIELS. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 15 and 18-32. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn. We note that Appellants' Appeal Brief incorrectly lists claim 18 as withdrawn rather than claim 16. Appeal Br. 25. Appeal2017-008843 Application 14/179,313 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a dryer for portable electronics. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A drying system for portable electronic devices, the system compnsmg: a pressurization subsystem configured, when the portable electronic device is in a chamber, to produce a negative pressure environment throughout the chamber sufficient to gasify liquid in the portable electronic device; and a thermal conduction assembly configured, when the portable electronic device is in the negative pressure environment throughout the chamber, to substantially conform in three dimensions to an external shape of the portable electronic device and to conduct heat to the portable electronic device sufficient to at least overcome latent heat of evaporation resulting from the gasifying of the liquid in the portable electronic device. REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 6-10, 19, 23, and 25-28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke (US 2006/0137213 Al, pub. June 29, 2016) in view of Andrew, Saving a wet cell phone with dry rice ... Holy crap, it actually works!, Open Attitude (April 12, 2011), http://openattitude.com/2011/04/12/saving-a-wet-cell-phone-with-dry-rice- holy-crap-it-actually-works/ (last visited May 16, 2018), "Andrew." Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Bland (US 2011/0247233 Al, pub. October 13, 2011). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, Bland, and Romanek (US 2010/0088922 Al, pub. April 15, 2010). 2 Appeal2017-008843 Application 14/179,313 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Chen (US 2006/0277782 Al, pub. December 14, 2006). Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Leprince (US 2011/0060945 Al, pub. March 10, 2011). Claims 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Watson (US 2011/0047814 Al, pub. March 3, 2011). Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Romanek. Claims 4, 5, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Latos (US 2011/0219640 Al, pub. September 15, 2011 ). Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Asuke, Andrew, and Tadano (US 2005/0044744 Al, March 3, 2005). OPINION Appellants take issue with the Examiner's combination of Asuke and Andrew, which underlies each of the rejections before us. App. Br. 16-20. Appellants correctly argue that although the specific coating means of Asuke is optional (Asuke para. 153) and Asuke contemplates other applications (Ans. 3 (citing Asuke para. 154)), none of the applications contemplated by Asuke (Asuke paras. 154--155) appear to be of the type that would reasonably be expected to produce successful results if performed while immersed in rice as the Examiner proposes. It is unlikely that it would have been obvious to do that which the skilled artisan would not reasonably expect to be successful. See MPEP Â§ 2143.02. 3 Appeal2017-008843 Application 14/179,313 The Examiner reasons that the proposed combination would have been obvious because the rejections are based on repurposing Asuke's device and "fundamental techniques of drying." Ans. 3. However, there is no supporting evidence in the record before us to establish what the Examiner finds to be the "fundamental techniques of drying." Core factual findings in an obviousness analysis must be supported by evidence in the record. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If the rejection is predicated on the "fundamental techniques of drying" it makes little sense to start an obviousness analysis with the device of Asuke only to propose to destroy it and disregard most of Asuke' s teachings. If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is likely no reason other than hindsight to make that proposed modification. See MPEP Â§ 2143.01 (V) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir.1984)). It is improper to base a conclusion of obviousness upon facts gleaned only through hindsight. To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction-an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability. Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore &Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made. Id. ( citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). As we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately articulated reasons with rational underpinnings supporting the proposed 4 Appeal2017-008843 Application 14/179,313 combination of incorporating the rice of Andrew into the machine of Asuke, the Examiner's rejections cannot be sustained. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.") cited with approval in KSR Int 'l. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). DECISION The Examiner's rejections are reversed. REVERSED 5