Ex Parte Grunert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2017

12290485 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2017)

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.
12/290,485 10/30/2008 Klaus Grunert PTB-6032-100 1255
23117 7590 02/22/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LU, JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 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@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS GRUNERT, GUENTER STEFFENS, and
ANDREAS STOLZE
Appeal 2015-0058831
Application 12/290,4852
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 3—9, 11—14, 16, 17, and 19-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Dec. 8, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 14, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 9, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed July 17, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is BSH BOSCH
UND SIEMENS HAUSGERATE GMBH, a corporation of the country of
Germany.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-005883
Application 12/290,485
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the Specification “relates to a vented dryer
with heat recovery and condensate pan and also a preferred method for
operation thereof.” Spec. 1,11.4—5.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 3—9, 11—14, 16, 17, and 19-21 are on appeal.3 Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A vented dryer, comprising
a drying chamber for items to be dried;
a supply air duct for process air, in which is situated a
heater for heating the process air before the process air enters the
drying chamber;
a first fan that directs the process air over the items to be
dried in the drying chamber;
an exhaust air duct coupled to the drying chamber and
guiding the process air exiting the drying chamber, the exhaust
air duct being adapted to exhaust air to outside of the vented
dryer;
a motor for driving the drying chamber;
a first heat exchanger in the exhaust air duct;
a condensate pan arranged beneath the first heat exchanger
and accumulating condensate therein; and
means for discharging heated air from a housing interior
surrounding the motor toward the condensate pan and away
across the condensate pan such that the condensate accumulated
in the condensate pan evaporates and is carried away by the
heated air, the heated air being other than the process air and
originating outside the supply air duct, the drying chamber, and
the exhaust air duct, the heated air originating from the housing
3 Claims 2, 10, 15, and 18 have been withdrawn from consideration as
directed to a nonelected invention. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-005883
Application 12/290,485
interior surrounding the motor and being heated by heat from the
motor.
Appeal Br. 17.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1,3, 12—14, 16, 17, and 19-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Taylor4 in view of Sisler5
and Immel.6
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sisler, Immel, and Whyte.7
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sisler, Immel, and Klix.8
4. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sisler, Immel, and Werner.9
5. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sisler, Immel, and Tatsumi.10
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia:
means for discharging heated air from a housing interior
surrounding the motor toward the condensate pan and away
across the condensate pan such that the condensate accumulated
in the condensate pan evaporates and is carried away by the
heated air, the heated air being other than the process air and
4 Taylor, US 4,103,433, iss. Aug. 1, 1978.
5 Sisler et al., US 3,942,265, iss. Mar. 9, 1976.
6 Immel, US 4,882,911, iss. Nov. 28, 1989.
7 Whyte et al., US 3,032,887, iss. May 8, 1962.
8 Klix, DE 3233450 Al, pub. Mar. 15, 1984.
9 Werner et al., US 4,700,492, iss. Oct. 20, 1987.
10 Tatsumi et al., JP 2007-135832 A, pub. June 7, 2007.
3
Appeal 2015-005883
Application 12/290,485
originating outside the supply air duct, the drying chamber, and
the exhaust air duct, the heated air originating from the housing
interior surrounding the motor and being heated by heat from the
motor.
Appeal Br. 17. Each of the remaining independent claims includes a
substantially similar limitation. Id. at 18—21 (claims 12, 17, 20). Thus, each
claim requires using heat from a motor to heat air that is passed over a
condensate pan in order to evaporate condensate, and each claim requires
that this air originates separately from the process air that passes through the
supply air duct, the drying chamber, and the exhaust air duct. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has failed to show that such a configuration
would have been obvious in view of the art of record. See Appeal Br. 11—
14.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Taylor discloses a
vented dryer including a drying chamber, a supply air duct, a first fan, a first
heat exchanger, and a condensate pan. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner
acknowledges that Taylor does not expressly disclose a motor or a means for
discharging heated air over the condensate pan as claimed. Id. at 3. The
Examiner relies on Sisler as disclosing a vented dryer and finds that Sisler
teaches:
The air within the dryer 10 surrounding the motor 18 is heated
by the motor 18 and the heated air being other than the process
air and originating outside the supply air duct, the drying
chamber and the exhaust air duct, the heated air originating from
the housing interior surrounding the motor and being heated by
heat from the motor (See Fig. 1).
Id. The Examiner further relies on Tmmel as disclosing a means for
discharging heated air across a condensate pan. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to combine the art as claimed “in
4
Appeal 2015-005883
Application 12/290,485
order to rapidly and reliably eliminate the accumulated condensate water.”
Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sisler teaches heating air with heat from a motor that is air other than
process air or originating outside of the supply air duct for process air.
Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner cites generally to Sisler Figure 1 for this
finding. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner has not identified any express
disclosure that this is the case, and to the extent Sisler motor heats any air, it
appears that it would heat process air after it exits the drying chamber. In
short, the Examiner identifies no support for the finding that Sisler discloses,
either expressly or inherently, heating air that is not process air, as required
by each of the independent claims. Because the rejection relies on the
erroneous finding that Sisler discloses a motor that heats air other than
process air, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 12, 17, and 20
or the rejections of dependent claims 3—9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 21.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the rejections of claims
1,3-9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19-21.
REVERSED
5