Ex Parte Favaro et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

10525627 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DANIELE FAVARO, ROBERTO PEZZETTA, and
GRAZIANO LAZZAROTTO
____________

Appeal 2011-007818
Application 10/525,627
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and TERRY J. OWENS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 7-10 as
unpatentable over JP 116 (JP 2000-107116, pub. Apr. 18, 2000; as
translated) in view of Geiger (US 4,064,887, issued Dec. 27, 1977) and JP
150 (JP 63154150, pub. Jun. 27, 1988; as translated) and of dependent
claims 2, 4-6, and 11-14 as unpatentable over these references alone or in
Appeal 2011-007818
Application 10/525,627

2
combination with other prior art of record. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim an automatic dishwasher comprising first (20) and
second (21) spray arms and a tub (18) having a downward sloping bottom
panel (22) that directs the wash water into a sump hopper (23) characterized
in that the first spray arm extends coaxially with the sump hopper while the
second spray arm is positioned above the sloped panel with its axis of
rotation extending at a right angle to the panel, "wherein a plane of rotation
of the second spray arm (21) partly extends underneath that of the first spray
arm (20)" (claim 1, see also claims 7-10; Fig. 3).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
Claim 1: Automatic dishwasher, especially for built-in kitchenettes,
comprising a cabinet (10) and equipped with a front door (11) that seals the
wash tub (18) housing at least one first (20) and one second (21) spray arm
for washing the dishes placed in at least one rack (19), said tub being closed
on the bottom by a downward sloping panel (22) that directs the wash water
into a sump hopper (23) which serves to collect and drain the water, said
first and second spray arms being disposed vertically beneath said rack (19)
adjacent said sloped panel (22), characterized in that the first spray arm (20)
essentially extends coaxially with the sump hopper (23) while the second
spray arm (21) is positioned above the sloped panel (22) with its axis of
rotation extending at a right angle to said panel, wherein a plane of rotation
of the second spray arm (21) partly extends underneath that of the first spray
arm (20).

In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner acknowledges that
JP 116 "does not teach that the first spray arm extends coaxially with the
sump hopper and that the second arm extends at a right angle to the bottom
sloping panel" (Ans. para. bridging 4-5). Nevertheless, the Examiner
Appeal 2011-007818
Application 10/525,627

3
concludes that it would have been obvious "to have placed the first spray
arm [of JP 116] above the sump pump" in view of Geiger (id.) and that it
would have been obvious "to have angled the second spray arm [of JP 116]
above [the] sloped bottom wall" in view of JP 150 (id. at 5).
As for the independent claim requirement that the plane of rotation of
the second spray arm partly extends underneath that of the first spray arm,
the Examiner states that "the 2nd plane of rotation [i.e., of the second spray
arm] must necessarily partly extend under the plane of rotation of the first
spray arm" (id. at para. bridging 5-6).
Appellants argue that none of the applied references teaches an angled
spray arm having a plane of rotation partly extending underneath the rotation
plane of another spray arm and that the Examiner is incorrect in believing
the angled arm plane "must necessarily partly extend under the plane of the
first spray arm" (id.) as evinced by both Geiger and JP 150 (App. Br.
(unnumbered pp.) 16-17; Reply Br. 1-2).
Appellants' argument is persuasive. As an initial matter, we observe
that the Examiner's obviousness conclusion does not identify which of JP
116's two spray arms is regarded as Appellants' claimed coaxially extending
first spray arm versus the angled second spray arm. Furthermore, while
Figure 1 of JP 116 shows a left spray arm whose plane of rotation partly
extends underneath that of the right spray arm, the Examiner articulates no
reasoning with rational underpinning for providing JP 116’s left spray arm
specifically with the angular disposition required by the claimed second
spray arm. In fact, such a provision would require substantially re-designing
the sloping bottom panel and sump hopper of JP 116 for no apparent reason
other than to re-create Appellants’ claimed dishwasher based on hindsight.
Appeal 2011-007818
Application 10/525,627

4

For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain any of the § 103
rejections advanced by the Examiner in this appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl