Ex Parte Gayle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

13705223 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/705,223 12/05/2012
46726 7590 08/24/2018
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Gayle
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.
2012P02743US 9810
EXAMINER
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2018 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES GAYLE, TIFF ANY E. INGERSOLL, and
BENJAMIN KNIGHT
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
James Gayle et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated May 4, 2016,
hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. 2
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH is identified as the real party
in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 27, 2017, hereafter "Br.").
Br. 3.
2 Claims 16 and 19 are canceled. See Br. 20, 21.
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "a ventilation system for a cooktop."
Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A domestic cooking appliance, comprising:
an oven having
an oven air exhaust duct located above the oven,
and
an exhaust fan for moving oven cooling air though
the oven air exhaust duct and out of an oven air exhaust outlet
located at an upper rear location of the oven; and
a cooktop located above the oven, the cooktop having
a cooktop main unit positioned above the oven, the
cooktop main unit having a container support for supporting
cooking containers to be heated by the cooktop;
a cooktop exhaust outlet combined with the oven
air exhaust outlet at the upper rear location of the oven; and
a ventilation system for routing cooktop cooling
air through the cooktop main unit, the ventilation system having
a cooling air inlet located at a bottom of a
front of the cooktop main unit and located above the oven,
a cooktop inlet duct that channels the
cooktop cooling air from the cooling air inlet to the container
support, the cooktop inlet duct having a horizontal section and a
vertical section, the horizontal section extending from the
cooling air inlet to a lower end of the vertical section, and the
vertical section extending vertically from the horizontal section
to the container support, and
a cooktop exhaust duct including an outlet
that channels the cooktop cooling air from the container support
to the oven air exhaust duct, the cooktop exhaust duct having a
vertical section that extends vertically from the container
support to the oven air exhaust duct, the outlet being positioned
2
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
at the bottom of the cooktop to mate with an opening in the
oven air exhaust duct,
wherein the domestic cooking appliance is configured to
route the cooktop cooling air through the cooling air inlet, then
through the cooktop inlet duct, then under the container
support, then through the cooktop exhaust duct, then through
the oven air exhaust duct, and then through the oven
air exhaust outlet and the cooktop exhaust outlet combined at
the upper rear location of the oven.
REJECTION
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2007/0158328 Al,
pub. July 12, 2007, hereinafter "Kim"), Oagley et al. (US
2012/0305544 Al, pub. Dec. 6, 2012, hereinafter "Oagley"), and
Scherer (US 4,163,894, iss. Aug. 7, 1979).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses a domestic cooking appliance
including an oven 31 having an oven air exhaust duct 41 (first air inflow
duct), 3 located above oven 31, and an exhaust fan 72 (blowing fan unit) for
moving cooling air through oven air exhaust duct 41 through oven air outlet
62 of oven air exhaust duct 61 (air discharge duct). Final Act. 4--5 (citing
Kim, paras. 4 7, 62, and 63, Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds that Kim
discloses a cooktop 21 having container supports 22, a cooktop inlet duct 51
(second air inflow duct), having a horizontal section, for channeling cooling
air from inlet 52 through a cooktop exhaust outlet combined with oven air
3 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Kim.
3
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
outlet 62 of oven air exhaust duct 61 (air discharge duct). Id. at 5 (citing
Kim, paras. 46, 63, Fig. 5). However, the Examiner finds that Kim's
cooktop inlet duct 51 fails to have "a vertical section ... the vertical section
extending vertically from the horizontal section to the container support[ s]
[22]." Id. The Examiner further finds that Kim also fails to disclose "a
cooktop exhaust duct ... having a vertical section that extends vertically
from the container support [22] to the oven air exhaust duct [41]." Id. Thus,
according to the Examiner, Kim fails to disclose that the cooling air is routed
through cooktop inlet duct 51, then under container supports [22], then
through oven air exhaust duct 41, and, finally, through the combined oven
air and cooktop exhaust outlet 62, as called for by each of independent
claims 1, 8, and 21. Id.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Oagley discloses a cooktop
appliance where cooling air is provided via a cooling air inlet 44 (intake
opening)4 having a vertical section that routes cooling air under container
supports (induction elements 20) of cooktop 10 and through discharge outlet
46 (exhaust opening) toward oven 30 (oven cavity). Id. (citing Oagley,
paras. 22, 26, Fig. 4). The Examiner further finds that Scherer discloses an
oven where cooling air 32 is routed through cooling air ducts 36, 40 into a
vertical cooling air exhaust duct 46 (vertical diluter tube), 5 where it
combines with hot air from oven liner 56, and then the combined flows
travel into oven air exhaust duct 48 (discharge duct) for discharge. Id. at 6
(citing Scherer, col. 3, 11. 17, 20-23, 26, and 28, Fig. 2).
4 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Oagley.
5 Parenthetical nomenclature refers to Scherer.
4
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
Thus, the Examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the cooling system
taught by Kim by modifying the cooktop inlet duct to allow
cooling air to enter the cooktop main unit from the rear of the
cooktop main unit and exhausting the heated air towards the
front of the cooktop main unit as taught by Oagely [sic] so that
the cooling air can directly contact the container support as
taught by [Oagley] in order to provide better cooling to both the
cooking elements and the container support. Further, it would
have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify
the domestic cooktop taught by Kim by placing a cooktop main
unit outlet at the front of the cooktop as taught by Oagley in
order [to] allow the inlet duct to act as a cool air barrier
between the oven exhaust duct and the cooktop main unit.
Id. at 5---6 ( emphasis added).
The Examiner further determines that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the domestic cooking
appliance taught by the combination of Kim and Oagely [sic]
by connecting the vertical cooktop exhaust [ 46] taught by
Oagely [sic] to the oven air exhaust channel [ 41] of Kim via a
vertical cooling air exhaust duct [ 46] as taught by Scherer in
order to dilute the oven exhaust air and significantly decrease[]
its temperature relative to the temperature of the oven liner as it
flows through the oven body prior to being exhausted to
atmosphere.
Id. at 6 (citing Scherer, col. 3, 11. 32-34). To better illustrate the
modification of Kim's domestic cooking appliance, according to Oagley and
Scherer, the Examiner provides an annotated Figure 5 of Kim as shown
below:
5
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
The Examiner's annotated Figure 5 of Kim shows "Inlet of Oagley," "Outlet
ofOagley," and "Vertical duct of Scherer."
With respect to the combination of Kim and Oagley, Appellants note
that Kim discloses the use of wind direction control 81 to "direct cooling air
to cook-top type cooker 21 so that ... cooker 21 can be cooled much faster
with the assistance of the outside air introduced into the second air inflow
duct [ 51]." Br. 11 ( citing Kim, Figs. 4, 5). Thus, according to Appellants, it
would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art "to
modify the cooling system of Kim to exhaust the heated air toward the front
of the cooktop main unit as taught by Oagley." Br. 11. Accordingly,
Appellants assert that the Examiner's modification ( 1) "would not flow [air]
over cook-top type cooker 21 and would not assist in ... [its] cooling";
(2) "would thus raise the temperature of the incoming cooling air" as the
rear of Kim's cooktop 21 "is closer to the hot exhaust from outlet 62"; and
6
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
(3) that "there is no motivation in either reference to reverse this flow
direction as shown in Oagley" because "Kim already routes cooling air
underneath cook-top type cooker 21 through second air inflow duct 51." Id.
Moreover, Appellants contend that the Examiner's modification "would
result in additional ductwork ... [ that would] require taking space from the
oven interior space to provide the vertical space needed for the ductwork,"
which is "detrimental to the end product without gaining any disclosed
benefit over Kim." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the following
reasons. First, although we appreciate Appellants' position that in the
appliance of Kim, as modified by Oagley, the cooling air would not flow
over cooktop 21, nonetheless, cooling air will flow underneath cooktop 21,
and, thus, the cooling air will assist in cooling cooktop 21. We agree with
the Examiner that as "Dagley directly cools the internal components . ..
[located underneath] the cooktop main unit, whereas Kim ... cools the
cooking swface," the appliance of Kim, as modified by Oakley, cools both
the cooking surface and the internal components of cooktop 21. Examiner's
Answer 20 (dated Aug. 10, 2017, hereinafter "Ans."). Hence, the
Examiner's modification is an improvement to Kim's appliance to provide
cooling air in the same way as taught by Oagley, to directly cool the internal
components underneath Kim's cooktop, as well as cooling the cooktop
surface, which leads to a predictable result, and the modification is well
within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
7
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.").
Secondly, Appellants' assertion that the Examiner's modification
would raise the temperature of the incoming cooling air such that it would
not be able to cool cooktop surface 21 of Kim's appliance, as modified by
Oagley (see Br. 11 ), is unsupported attorney argument and cannot take the
place of evidence in the record. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). We agree with the Examiner in "that preheating ... does not by
itself invalidate the combination," as "long as the degree of preheating is
no[t] so substantial that the cooling air is at a temperature higher than the
cooktop main unit." Ans. 21. Moreover, the Examiner is correct in "that
when the oven is not in use[,] the cooktop is the only heat source and in this
scenario it would be impossible for the temperature of the cooling air to
exceed the temperature of the cooktop main unit." Id.
Thirdly, although we appreciate Appellants' position that Kim already
routes cooling air underneath cooktop surface 21, nonetheless, by rerouting
the cooling air underneath Kim's cooktop 21, as taught by Oagley, the
Examiner is correct in that improved cooling occurs because the cooling air
contacts directly container supports 22 and cooktop surface 21. Ans. 22.
We further agree with the Examiner that the modification also provides the
advantage of using Kim's inlet duct 51 "as a cool[ing] air barrier between
the oven exhaust duct [ 41] and the cooktop main unit [21] '." Id. Appellants
do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's findings or identify any
flaw in the Examiner's reasoning.
8
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
Furthermore, we appreciate Appellants' position that modifying
Kim's appliance, according to Oagley, may result in additional ductwork
being required, that, in tum, would reduce oven interior space. Br. 11.
However, that "the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another
benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the
disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another."
Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir.
2000). Here, even assuming arguendo that the cooling system of Kim's
appliance, as modified by Oagley, may result in having reduced oven
interior space, this would not have dissuaded a person having ordinary skill
in the art from making such a modification to obtain the benefit of improved
cooling, as discussed supra. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner, that
there "is no reason why the entire unit cannot be enlarged to accommodate
the additional ducting without reducing the oven interior space." Ans. 22.
Finally, in regards to the combination of Kim, Oagley, and Scherer,
Appellants note that "[ t ]he purpose of the vertical nature of vertical diluter
tube 46 and vent tube 58 is to increase airflow in diluter tube 46," such that,
"hot gasses [ from the oven interior] passing through vent tube 5 8 heat the
tube which in tum heats the surrounding air, causing it to rise inside diluter
tube 46." Br. 12 (citing Scherer, col. 3, lines 62). In contrast, Appellants
note that "because both Kim and Oagley have fans that move cooling air
through their ducts," there is no need for such "thermal induced movement"
in the appliance of Kim, as modified by Oagley. Id. Therefore, Appellants
contend that "there would have been no motivation to combine vertical
9
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
diluter tube 46 of Scherer with the asserted combination of Kim and
Oagley." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because as the
Examiner correctly states, "[ t ]he buoyancy driven flow taught by Scherer is
not material to the rejection." Ans. 23. Obviousness does not require that
all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the
primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). In this
case, the Examiner is not using the particular construction of Scherer's
vertical diluter tube 46 and vent tube 58 to generate a thermal induced flow.
Rather, the Examiner's rejection recognizes that "the flows in Kim and
Oagley are not buoyancy driven" and only employs Scherer's vertical
cooling air exhaust duct 46 to connect Oagley' s vertical cooktop exhaust 46
to oven-air exhaust channel 41, in the appliance of Kim, as modified by
Oagley. Ans. 23. The Examiner reasons that such a modification "dilute[s]
the oven exhaust air and significantly decreases its temperature relative to
the temperature of the oven liner as it flows through the oven body prior to
being exhausted to atmosphere." Id. Appellants do not persuasively show
error in the Examiner's findings or identify any flaw in the Examiner's
reasomng.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 as unpatentable
over Kim, Oagley, and Scherer.
10
Appeal 2017-011388
Application 13/705,223
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim, Oagley, and Scherer is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11