Ex Parte Dittmer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2013

10557363 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte LOTHAR DITTMER, THOMAS NAWROT, and
ANDREAS ZIEMANN
____________________

Appeal 2011-008147
Application 10/557,363
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008147
Application 10/557,363
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
23-33.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a laundry drier. Claim 23, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A laundry drier comprising:
a housing;
a drum supported by the housing for rotation with respect
to the housing in a principal rotational direction and forming a
drying chamber;
a charging opening, the charging opening being formed
on the housing and providing access to the drum for placing
laundry into, and removing laundry from, the drum;
an opening in fluid flow communication with the drying
chamber, the opening communicating the drying chamber with
an outlet such that process air can flow from the drying
chamber to the outlet during a laundry drying operation in
which the charging opening is closed off and the drum is
rotating; and
a projection extending radially inwardly from the housing
and disposed adjacent the opening for deflecting the laundry
away from the opening.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Smith
Rood
US 2,925,663
US 5,548,904
Feb. 23, 1960
Aug. 27, 1996

1 We understand the Examiner’s statement on page 11 of the Answer to
mean that the rejections of claims 12-18, 20-22, 34-41, 43 and 44 have been
withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 11.
Appeal 2011-008147
Application 10/557,363
3
Ellingson US 5,881,579 Mar. 16, 1999

REJECTIONS
Claims 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellingson and Rood2. Ans. 12.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellingson, Rood and Smith. Ans. 13.

OPINION
Even though Ellingson only discloses that opening 34 is for providing
access to the tub 12 (col. 2, ll. 47-48), the Examiner interprets access
opening 34 as the recited “[fluidic] opening” and finds that Ellingson lacks a
charging opening. Ans. 12-13. Even assuming this interpretation was
reasonable, independent claim 23 requires a charging opening, a second,
fluidic opening associated with the process air, and an outlet. That fluidic
opening must “communicate[] the drying chamber with [the] outlet such that
process air can flow from the drying chamber to the outlet.” Thus, in order
to determine if Ellingson’s opening 34 meets this requirement we must
determine if Ellingson’s outlet and opening are in “fluid flow
communication,” and, if that communication enables, or is “such that,”
“process air can flow from the drying chamber to [that] outlet.”
It is not apparent what structure in Ellingson the Examiner regards as
the recited “outlet.” Presumably, there must exist some outlet for the process
air in Ellingson’s device. However, without any discussion by Ellingson or
the Examiner of such a structure, it is unclear why the Examiner believes

2 We understand the Examiner’s omission of Rood on page 12 of the Answer
to be inadvertent. Cf. Ans. 11.
Appeal 2011-008147
Application 10/557,363
4
that Ellingson’s access opening 34, interpreted by the Examiner as
thefluidic, opening, has any role in enabling process air to flow to that outlet.
Since we are unable to discern the basis for the Examiner’s belief that
Ellingson’s device meets the limitations in question, we are constrained to
reverse the rejections based on Ellingson.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

mls