Ex Parte Do

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 17, 2009

10717610 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2009)

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.
10/717,610 11/21/2003 Gi Hyeong Do 9988.071.00-US 8195
30827 7590 07/20/2009
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2009 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 GI HYEONG DO
__________

Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: 1July 17, 2009
__________

Before DEMETRA MILLS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion filed by the Board by Administrative Patent Judge MILLS.

Opinion Dissenting-In-Part filed by Administrative Patent Judge
McCOLLUM.

MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal, as recited in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.304 (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 (b)(1)), begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date.
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected
the claims for obviousness and for obviousness-type double patenting. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The following claims are representative:
1. A laundry dryer control method comprising the steps of:
initiating a drying procedure;
measuring temperature;
calculating a temperature variation rate;
calculating a drying time based on the temperature variation rate;
performing the drying procedure for the calculated drying time;
calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates; and
determining whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature
variation rate as a function of the plurality of temperature variation rates.

6. The method as claimed in claim 52, wherein the substantial increase is
determined by comparing changes in the plurality of temperature variation
rates.

15. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein determining whether a
change in the temperature variation rates is substantial comprises:
determining whether the change in a temperature variation rate exceeds 1°C
per minute.

2 According to the Brief, page 2, claim 5 has been cancelled, thus claims 6
and 15, as well as claim 2, are dependent upon a cancelled claim. Upon
return of the Application to the Examiner, the Examiner should consider an
appropriate rejection of claims 2, 6, and 15 on this basis if prosecution
should continue in the Application.
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

3

Cited References
Krüger US 4,412,389 Nov. 1, 1983
Wentzlaff US 5,682,684 Nov. 4, 1997
Hyldon US 3,792,956 Feb. 19, 1974
Do US 6,775,923 B2 Aug. 17, 2004

Grounds of Rejection
1. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Krüger in view of Wentzlaff.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Krüger in view of Wentzlaff in further view of Hyldon.
3. Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,775,923.

Rejection 1
1. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Krüger in view of Wentzlaff.

ISSUE
The Examiner argues that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
combine the teachings of Krüger with the steps of calculating a
plurality of temperature variation rates and determining whether there
is a substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a function
of the plurality of temperature variation rates, disclosed in Wentzlaff,
for the purpose of applying a variable process such that an averaged
measured value of air temperature during a quasi-steady-state phase to
keep approximate equilibrium of heat removal from laundry by
recorded and stored memory so that in making a decision as to which
of the memorized process courses should be considered for the further
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

4

handling of the load of laundry and a relevant decision data until the
quasi-steady-state phase is reached as suggested in the summary of the
invention section of Wentzlaff.

(Ans. 6-7.)

Appellant contends that the dryer control method taught by Wentzlaff
fails to calculate any rate. (App. Br. 8.) Appellant argues that Wentzlaff
“cannot possibly teach or suggest calculating a temperature variation rate,
calculating more than one temperature variation rate and determining
whether there is a substantial increase in temperature variation rate, as
required by the claims.” (App. Br. 8.)
The issue is: Does the cited prior art teach or suggest “calculating a
plurality of temperature variation rates; and determining whether there is a
substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a function of the
plurality of temperature variation rates,” as recited in claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Specification teaches that “a laundry drier . . . determines a
proper drying time by sensing the variation of the temperature per unit time
as the drying procedure progresses as well as sensing any change in the
temperature variation rate per unit time” (Spec. ¶ 27).
2. The Specification teaches that “[t]he temperature variation rate per
unit time, measured from the initiation of the drying procedure, decreases
over time at a known rate, and after a predetermined time passes, the
temperature variation rate per unit time increases when the drying object is
nearly dry. This increase in temperature variation rate per unit time is used
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

5

to calculate the remaining drying time and in turn an overall drying time”
(Spec. ¶ 27).
3. Krüger teaches “a method of automatically controlling the drying
process of a laundry drying system” (Krüger, col. 1, ll. 51-53).
4. Krüger teaches initiating “the early phase of the drying process when
the drying system is switched on” (Krüger, col. 2, ll. 20-21).
5. Krüger teaches “measuring and taking into account the temperature
difference existing between the drying system and the surrounding air before
the beginning of the drying process” (Krüger, col. 2, ll. 36-39).
6. Krüger teaches that “[t]he quotient forming means 101 receives a
value indicating the temperature difference between the two temperature
marks Θ1 and Θ2 from a difference value forming means . . . and forms a
signal for the temperature gradient ΔΘ/Δt from these” (Krüger, col. 5, ll. 38-
43).
7. Krüger teaches that a “further calculation stage 102 of the computer
calculates the operating time or duration from these values . . . When the
operating time calculated by computer 100 has elapsed, the program cycle
control unit 2 discontinues the operation of the power consuming
components in the drying system 3” (Krüger, col. 5, ll. 43-55).
8. The Examiner finds that Krüger does not teach “calculating a plurality
of temperature variation rates and determining whether there is a substantial
increase in the temperature variation rate as a function of the plurality of
temperature variation rates” (Ans. 6).
9. Wentzlaff teaches “measuring process variables, such as an actually
elapsed time since a program start, and temperature values . . . continuously
or at least periodically at frequencies of several times per second”
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

6

(Wentzlaff, col. 2, ll. 52-56). Such measurements may be incorporated in
fuzzy logic calculations.
10. Wentzlaff teaches that “the thermal output variable rises faster as the
heating output becomes higher, depending on the main voltage, and as the
amounts of laundry become smaller and the initial residual moisture
becomes lower. Thus, thermal output becomes higher as the moisture
content of the clothes become lower, i.e., the clothes become drier”
(Wentzlaff, col. 3, ll. 25-33.)
11. Wentzlaff uses fuzzy logic to determine remaining drying time. Fuzzy
logic is a form of algebra employing a range of values from "true" to "false"
that is used in making decisions with imprecise data. The outcome of an
operation is assigned a value between 0 and 1 corresponding to its degree of
truth. Fuzzy logic is used, for example, in artificial intelligence systems. A
fuzzy processor performs fuzzy logic, including multiple calculations. The
free dictionary by Farlex. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fuzzy+logic.
12. According to the Examiner, Krüger in view of Wentzlaff discloses
the invention of claim 15 except for the claimed one degree Celsius rate
excess. (Ans. 7.)
13. Hyldon discloses instant corn grits, and a method of heating grits by
increasing the temperature by 1.5ºC per minute. (Col. 5, ll. 33-37.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. “ In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citations omitted). Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

7

forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant. In order to
determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we considered the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
The obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). This “person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742.
As to motivation to combine references, the Supreme Court in KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007),
rejected a rigid application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation test. The
Court recognized that it is often necessary to look at the interrelated
teachings of multiple references; the effects of demands of the marketplace;
and the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill, “all
in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed.“ Id. at 1740-41. Moreover, the
“obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, or motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and explicit content of issued patents.“ Id.
at 1741. Finally, one “of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

8

known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 1742.

ANALYSIS
Krüger teaches a laundry dryer control method in which a drying
procedure is initiated (FF 3-4), temperature is measured (FF 5) and a
temperature variation rate is calculated, with a drying time based on the
calculated temperature variation rate (FF 6-7). Krüger measures only a
single temperature variation rate (FF 8). Wentzlaff teaches the measurement
of a plurality of temperatures variations (FF 9-11).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, use
of a plurality of measurements of temperature as taught by Wentzlaff in the
place of the single temperature variation rate measured by Krüger represents
a combination of predictable elements. Such a combination is merely a
“predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant contends that neither Krüger nor Wentzlaff, singularly or in
combination, teach or fairly suggest every element required by independent
claim 1. (Br. 7.) More specifically, Appellant argues that the prior art does
not disclose a laundry dryer control method that includes “calculating a
plurality of temperature variation rates; and determining whether there is a
substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a function of the
plurality of temperature variation rates.” (Br. 7.)
Appellant also contend that, “[w]hat Wentzlaff actually teaches is
periodically measuring temperatures at different locations in the dryer. (See
Wentzlaff at col. 8, ll. 29-46.) (Br. 8.) Appellant argues that taking a
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

9

plurality of temperature measurements during one or even a plurality of time
periods does not constitute calculating a rate, or more specifically, a
temperature variation rate.” (Br. 7.) Appellant argues that Wentzlaff
contains no teaching or suggestion to indicate that the temperature
measurements taken at various locations in the dryer are in any way used to
calculate or determine a rate of change in the temperature (i.e., a temperature
variation rate). (Br. 9.)
We agree with Appellant that neither Krüger nor Wentzlaff alone
teach the use of a plurality of temperature variation rates. However, the
issue is not anticipation by either reference, but rather whether an ordinary
practitioner with ordinary creativity would have found it unobvious to
modify Krüger to replace the single measured temperature variation rate
with the plurality of measurements used by Wentzlaff. As Wentzlaff states,
“[e]mpirically, the measured values for temperature and moisture vary
within short periods of time, so that an individual measurement may under
some circumstances give an incorrect picture of the physical status
prevailing at that time” (Wentzlaff, col. 5, ll. 5-9). An ordinary practitioner
would have recognized this possibility of empirical error as one reason to
replace the single measured temperature variation rate in Krüger with a
plurality of measured temperature variation rates.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The combination of cited references renders obvious a method of
“calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates; and determining
whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a
function of the plurality of temperature variation rates” as claimed.
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

10

2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krüger in view of Wentzlaff in further view of Hyldon
(US 3,792,956).
We find that Hyldon is non-analogous art to the claimed invention and
is not particularly pertinent to the claimed technology. We do not find that
the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case
of obviousness for the subject matter of claim 15 and the rejection is
reversed. We note for the record that claim 15 is dependent upon a
cancelled claim, claim 5.

3. Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,923.

ISSUE
The pending claims are rejected for obviousness-type-double
patenting over the claims of Do. According to the Examiner, although the
conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because the present claims reciting calculating a temperature
variation rate” is a broader recitation, or at least structurally and functionally
equivalent, to the patented step “determining a medium temperature time by
measuring a time lapse from said drying procedure, initiating step to a point
where the internal temperature reaches a medium temperature between a
drying initiation temperature and a maximum drying temperature, setting a
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

11

drying time based on the determined medium temperature time and
performing the drying procedure for the set drying time.” (Ans. 8.)
Appellant argues with respect to the double patenting rejection that
there is no indication in Do ‘923’s claims of a teaching or suggestion of, at
least, “calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates; and determining
whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a
function of the plurality of temperature variation rates,” as recited in claim 1
of the Do Application.
The issue is: Is the claimed limitation of calculating a temperature
variation rate an obvious variation of the patented limitation, determining a
medium temperature time and setting a dryer time based on medium
temperature time.

FINDINGS OF FACT
14. The pending claims are rejection for obviousness-type-double
patenting over the claims of Do. According to the Examiner, although the
conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because the present claims reciting calculating a temperature
variation rate” is a broader recitation, or at least structurally and functionally
equivalent, to the patented step “determining a medium temperature time by
measuring a time lapse from said drying procedure, initiating step to a point
where the internal temperature reaches a medium temperature between a
drying initiation temperature and a maximum drying temperature, setting a
drying time based on the determined medium temperature time and
performing the drying procedure for the set drying time.” (Ans. 8.)
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

12

15. Claim 1 of the pending application is directed to:
1. A laundry dryer control method comprising the steps of:
initiating a drying procedure;
measuring temperature;
calculating a temperature variation rate;
calculating a drying time based on the temperature variation rate;
performing the drying procedure for the calculated drying time;
calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates; and
determining whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature
variation rate as a function of the plurality of temperature variation rates.

16. Claim 1 of the Do patent is directed to:
1. A laundry dryer control method comprising the steps of:
initiating a drying procedure by actuating a plurality of drivers, including a
heater driver to increase an internal temperature of a laundry drier;
determining a medium temperature time by measuring an time lapse
from said drying procedure initiating step to a point where the internal
temperature reaches a medium temperature between drying initiation
temperature and a maximum drying temperature;
setting a drying time based on the determined medium temperature
time, and
performing the drying procedure for the set drying time.
17. The Specification of the Do patent indicates a medium
temperature time is determined by a time lapse from the drying procedure
initiating step to a point where the internal temperature reaches a medium
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

13

temperature between a drying initiating temperature and a maximum drying
temperature. (Do, col. 2, ll. 35-42.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In the prosecution of a patent, the initial burden falls on the PTO to
set forth the basis of any rejection, i.e., a prima facie case.” Hyatt v. Dudas,
492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Obviousness-type double patenting
is a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy, which prevents the
extension of the term of the original patent via the patenting of an obvious
variation. Under obviousness-type double patenting, a patent is invalid when
it is merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in an
earlier patent by the same inventor.” Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The disclosure of a reference
patent may not be used as prior art in a double patenting rejection however,
in certain situations it may be used to define terms in claims and to
determine whether an embodiment claimed was modified in an obvious
manner. Carman Indus., Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Graham factual inquiries govern an obvious-type double patenting
analysis, See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966), a
sustainable obviousness-type double patenting rejection makes clear:
(A) the scope and content of a patent claim relative to a claim in the
application at issue;
(B) the differences between the scope and content of the patent claim as
determined in (A) and the claim in the application;
(C) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
(D) the value of any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

14

“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the claims of Do ‘923 fail to render obvious the
elements of “calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates; and
determining whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature
variation rate as a function of the plurality of temperature variation rates,”
as recited in independent claim 1 of the present application. (Br. 6.)
To support the double patenting rejection, the Examiner asserts that
the third element of the Do Application, that is, the claimed feature of
“calculating a temperature variation rate,” is considered a broader recitation
of “determining a medium temperature time by measuring a time lapse from
said drying procedure initiating step to a point where the internal
temperature reaches a medium temperature between a drying initiation
temperature and a maximum drying temperature; setting a drying time based
on the determined medium temperature time and performing the drying
procedure for the set drying time,” as claimed in Do ‘923. ( Id.) (Br. 6-7.)
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s argument that the claimed
feature of “calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates,” is an
obvious variation of the patented feature, “determining a medium
temperature time by measuring a time lapse from said drying procedure
initiating step to a point where the internal temperature reaches a medium
temperature between a drying initiation temperature and a maximum drying
temperature; setting a drying time based on the determined medium
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

15

temperature time and performing the drying procedure for the set drying
time”.
The claimed plurality of temperature variation rates is construed by
the Examiner as a change in temperature over a change in time. However,
the Examiner has failed to indicate how the amount of time from an initial
time to a time when the dryer reaches a medium temperature, is a calculation
a temperature variation rate or a plurality of temperature variation rates, as
presently claimed.
For this reason the obviousness-type double patenting rejection is
reversed.

SUMMARY
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is reversed. The
obviousness rejections of the claims are affirmed, except the obviousness
rejection of claim 15 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

16

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting-in-part.

I concur with the decision to reverse the double-patenting rejection
and the obviousness rejection of claim 15. However, I do not agree that the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that the method of claim 1 would
have been obvious. I would therefore also reverse the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, as well as of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-8.
ISSUE
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-8, the
Examiner relies on Krüger for disclosing “the claimed invention except for
the claimed steps of calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates and
determining whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature
variation rate as a function of the plurality of temperature variation rates”
(Ans. 6). The Examiner relies on Wentzlaff for disclosing the “steps of
calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates and determining
whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a
function of the plurality of temperature variation rates” (id.). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to combine the teachings of
Krüger with the steps of calculating a plurality of temperature variation rates
and determining whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature
variation rate as a function of the plurality of temperature variation rates,
disclosed in Wentzlaff” (id. at 5-6).
Appellant argues that Wentzlaff fails to “teach or suggest calculating a
temperature variation rate, calculating more than one temperature variation
rate and determining whether there is a substantial increase in temperature
variation rate, as required by the claims” (App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

17

I frame the issue as follows: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner
erred in concluding that Wentzlaff teaches or suggests “calculating a
plurality of temperature variation rates; and determining whether there is a
substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a function of the
plurality of temperature variation rates,” as recited in claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
18. Wentzlaff discloses “a method for controlling drying processes
in household washer-dryers” (Wentzlaff, col. 2, ll. 32-33).
19. In particular, Wentzlaff discloses a method comprising:
measuring a waste air temperature at the waste air outlet at a
starting point of a drying process; periodically turning at least
part of the heating device on and off during at least one time
segment at a beginning of the drying process; taking air
temperature measurements at an inlet of the heating device,
upstream of the incoming air inlet and immediately downstream
of the waste air outlet, . . . and forming and storing in memory
differences from the measured values in the waste air, at the
inlet to the heating device, and in the incoming air; and
measuring process variables, such as an actually elapsed time
since a program start, and temperature values and moisture
values of the laundry to be dried, continuously or at least
periodically at frequencies of several times per second, and
calling up a plurality of memorized process sequences to the
memory each time for output to and processing in the program
control unit, upon attainment of predetermined threshold values
as a function of entered program parameters pertaining to at
least one of type, amount and initial residual moisture of
laundry.
(Id. at col. 2, ll. 40-61.)
20. In describing a preferred embodiment, Wentzlaff discloses:
The diagram shown in FIG. 2 illustrates the fact that the heating
device 5 at the onset of the drying process is switched
periodically back and forth to a full heating output and a half
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

18

heating output. . . . As is clearly visible in the diagram of
FIG. 3, the result is an upswing and a downswing in a
temperature ν3 measured at the temperature transducer 3 at the
incoming air inlet 11 to the laundry drum 10. From a time t2=4
minutes onward, heating is then carried out continuously with
the full heating output, until the temperature transducer 3
ascertains an excessively high temperature.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 1-12.)
21. Wentzlaff also discloses:
At a starting time t0 of the drying operation, a waste air
temperature ν4s is measured at the temperature transducer 4 in
the waste air outlet. . . . Since at that moment the heating
device 5 is still cold, the temperature being measured relates
only to the situation of the surroundings and of a possibly
applicable preheating of the washer-dryer from a previous
drying process. At the starting time t0, the heating device 5 is
also switched to full heating output.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 17-27.)
22. In addition, Wentzlaff discloses:
Upon starting from the cold state of the washer-dryer, the
quantity of heat imported by the heating device 5 must initially
also heat the parts of the washer-dryer that come into contact
with the warm air stream, along with the load of laundry. In the
example of FIG. 3, the temperature ν3 at the transducer 3 in the
incoming air inlet 11 reaches approximately 75° after one
minute, while a temperature ν4 at the transducer 4 in the waste
air outlet 12 reaches only approximately 30°. In the next one-
minute interval, the heating device 5 is switched back to half
the heating output, and as a result the temperatures ν3 and ν4
drop again, with ν3 dropping to about 55° and ν4 to about 25°.
In the second full ON period of the heating device 5 in the third
one-minute interval, a temperature ν31 at the time t1 reaches
about 80°, while a temperature ν41 reaches about 35°. A
temperature ν21 at the transducer 2 in front of the inlet of the
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

19

heating device 5 still is assumed to amount to 20° C. at that
time, which is the temperature of the aspirated ambient air.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 29-46.)
23. Wentzlaff also discloses:
At the time t1 at which the temperatures ν21, ν41 and ν31 are
measured and averaged, differences ν4-2=ν41-ν21, ν3-4=ν31-ν41 and
ν3-2=ν31-ν21, are also formed immediately. From the variables
which are then present for the starting temperature ν4s, the
temperature differences ν4-2, ν3-4 and ν3-2, and the elapsed time
thus far for t1=3 minutes, the fuzzy processor calculates a total
drying time, which together with an algorithm 1 then called up
by callup A1 for the process segment preceding is used for
correction of the remaining time display that until then had
been estimated.
(Id. at col. 8, l. 59, to col. 9, l. 1.)
24. In addition, Wentzlaff discloses that the “remaining time to be
displayed is calculated . . . by the fuzzy processor on the basis of the
variables available at the moment of the callup” and that this “type of
calculation is employed together with the algorithms in callups A1, A2 and
A3” (id. at col. 9, ll. 1-22).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds:
Wentzlaff . . . discloses steps of calculating a plurality of
temperature variation rates and determining whether there is a
substantial increase in the temperature variation rate as a
function of the plurality of temperature variation rates at
column 8 lines 1-59 because the disclosed start temperature
values at minute intervals and system response represent a
variation rate calculation since both measure a value and
provide a response function and because the disclosed
considerable higher heating determines a substantial
temperature increase in variation rate, as a function of a
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

20

plurality of temperature variation rates, since both are an
iterative process to determine a laundry dryer control method.
(Ans. 6.) In particular, the Examiner finds that Wentzlaff suggests that “air
inlet temperature reaches ‘75 degrees after one minute’ (please see column 8
line 35) then in ‘the next one minute interval’ (please see column 8 line 37),
the temperature drops to ‘about 55 degrees’ (please see column 8 line 40)”
and that “[t]his expressed teaching meets the claimed calculating and
determining temperature variation rates as a function of plural temperature
variations” (Ans. 9). I do not agree.
Wentzlaff discloses that, at various callups, a fuzzy processor
calculates the remaining drying time “on the basis of the variables available
at the moment of the callup” (FF 23-24). At callup A1, Wentzlaff discloses
that these variables include the starting temperature, the temperature
differences, and the elapsed time (FF 23). The starting temperature refers to
the temperature “measured at the temperature transducer 4 in the waste air
outlet” at starting time t0 (FF 21). The temperature differences refer to the
differences, at time t1, between the temperatures at the transducer 3 in the
incoming air inlet 11, at the transducer 4 in the waste air outlet 12, and at the
transducer 2 in front of the inlet of the heating device 5 (FF 22-23). The
elapsed time at t1 is 3 minutes (FF 23). At later callups, additional variables
would be available and therefore used by the fuzzy processor to calculate the
remaining drying time (FF 19 & 24).
As noted by the Examiner, Wentzlaff does disclose that “the
temperature ν3 at the transducer 3 in the incoming air inlet 11 reaches
approximately 75° after one minute. . . . In the next one-minute interval, . . .
the temperature[] ν3 . . . drop[s] to about 55°. . . . In . . . the third one-minute
Appeal 2009-0434
Application 10/717,610

21

interval, a temperature ν31 at the time t1 reaches about 80°.” (FF 22.) In
addition, Wentzlaff discloses that, “after one minute, . . . a temperature ν4 at
the transducer 4 in the waste air outlet 12 reaches only approximately 30°.
In the next one-minute interval, . . . the temperature[] . . . ν4 drop[s] . . . to
about 25°. In . . . the third one-minute interval, . . . a temperature ν41 reaches
about 35°.” (Id.) Whether or not this discloses or suggests “calculating a
plurality of temperature variation rates,” I do not agree that the Examiner has
adequately explained how the applied references disclose or suggest
“determining whether there is a substantial increase in the temperature
variation rate as a function of the plurality of temperature variation rates.”
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Wentzlaff teaches or suggests “calculating a plurality of
temperature variation rates; and determining whether there is a substantial
increase in the temperature variation rate as a function of the plurality of
temperature variation rates.” I would therefore reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-8.

DISSENTING-IN-PART

lp
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006