Ex Parte Heidel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13058879 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/058,879 02/14/2011
46726 7590 10/04/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Heidel
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.
2008P03945WOUS 4760
EXAMINER
SHAHINIAN, LEVON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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 ANDREAS HEIDEL, BERND KRANZLE, and
CHRISTIAN WOLF
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 20-42, 44, 46-50, and 52-55 of
Application 13/058,879 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(May 8, 2014). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH is identified as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
BACKGROUND
The application at issue describes a domestic dishwasher which has a
main controller, a sorption drying device, and an additional controller to
control the sorption drying device in a specified manner.
Claim 20 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below:
20. A domestic dishwasher, comprising:
a main controller;
a sorption drying device having at least one electrical
component; and
an additional controller configured to specifically control
the sorption drying device, the additional controller being
functionally separate from the main controller,
wherein the additional controller is configured to change
the sorption drying device to a safe mode when a failure of the
main controller is detected.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 20, 21, 26-28, 37, 44, 46-50, 52, and 53 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jerg et al. (U.S. Publ.
2006/0278257 Al, pub. Dec. 14, 2006) ("Jerg") in view of Jeong et al. (U.S.
Publ. 2007/0107754 Al, pub. May 17, 2007) ("Jeong") and further in view
of Carlisle (U.S. Pat. No. 6,149,732, iss. Nov. 21, 2000) ("Carlisle"). Final
Act. 7.
2. Claims 22-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jerg in view of Jeong and Carlisle and further in
2
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
view of Wood (US Publ. 2003/0084928 Al, pub. May 8, 2003) ("Wood").
Final Act. 13.
3. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Jerg in view of Jeong and Carlisle and further in view of Tameishi et al. (US
Publ. 2008/0092933 Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2008) ("Tameishi"). Final Act. 15.
4. Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over J erg in view of Jeong, Carlisle, and Wood and further in view of
Livingston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,756,321, iss. July 12, 1988) ("Livingston").
Final Act. 16.
5. Claims 38, 39, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Jerg in view of Jeong and Carlisle and further in view ofNogi
et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,641,671, iss. Feb. 10, 1987) ("Nogi"). Final Act. 19.
6. Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Jerg in view of Jeong, Carlisle, Nogi, and Klein (US Publ.
2007/0163626 Al, pub. July 19, 2007) ("Klein"). Final Act. 21.
7. Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Jerg in view of Jeong and Livingston.
DISCUSSION
To conclude that the rejected claims would have been obvious over
the combined teachings of the prior art to an ordinarily skilled artisan, the
Examiner must provide some rationale, articulation, or reasoned basis to
explain why the conclusion of obviousness is correct. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
3
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
Motivation to Combine the Teachings of Jerg and Jeong
Appellants' first argument in support of their appeal concerns the
teaching of Jeong. The Examiner found that Jeong teaches a dishwasher
having a system microcomputer, equivalent to the "main controller" of claim
20, and a display microcomputer, equivalent to the claimed "additional
controller." Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner further found that the display
microcomputer of Jeong was "functionally separate" from the system
microcomputer. Id. In view of these teachings, the Examiner concluded that
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify the additional
controller taught by Jerg with the main controller taught by
Jeong to achieve the predictable result of a dishwasher which is
controlled by a main controller which itself is made up of a
functionally-separate additional controller of component
microcomputers in order to delegate the dishwasher control
functions to specialized microcomputers. The person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
would have been motivated to modify the additional controller
because it is noted in Jeong that utilizing specialized component
microcomputers allows for more efficient control (paragraph
[0058]).
The teaching of Jeong that utilizing specialized
component microcomputers allows for more efficient control is
applicable to any dishwasher controller, not merely the precise
way in which the specialized component microcomputers are
implemented in Jeong. Whether the component microcomputers
are specialized to control an electrical component such as a
display or to control any other dishwasher electrical component
would be irrelevant to the improved control efficiency.
Id. at 3.
Appellants assert that this finding is merely conclusory, Appeal Br. 8,
and that "[!]here is no motivation in the references to break the control
4
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
functions into two separate controllers with the functions divided according
to the present claims." Id. at 7 (underscoring in original).
The Supreme Court has held that "if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
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." KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In Jeong, the allocation of
differentiated functions to a main controller and an additional controller has
been used to improve the efficiency of a dishwasher. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize the feasibility of an additional controller for
other dishwasher components such as the sorption drying device.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner engages in circular logic in
finding a motivation to combine the teachings of Jerg and Jeong.
Specifically, Appellants assert that "the Office Action also alleges that the
two controllers of claims 20 and 44 would have been obvious 'in order to
delegate the dishwasher control functions to specialized microcomputers.'"
Appeal Br. 8 (citing Final Act. 11 ). In response, the Examiner notes that the
stated motivation for one of skill in the art to modify the additional
controller was "'because it is noted in Jeong that utilizing specialized
component microcomputers allows for more efficient control (paragraph
[0058]). '" Answer 24--25.
Circular reasoning involves the use in the argument of a conclusion to
be proved. This portion of the rejection may have been somewhat inartfully
drafted; however, viewing it as a whole, it is apparent that the Examiner
relied upon the teaching of Jeong regarding improved efficiency to support
the finding of a motivation to combine. The Examiner did not merely find
5
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
that "it would have been obvious to add the features so that the features
would have been present." Appeal Br. 8.
The Carlisle Disclosure
The Examiner relies upon Carlisle for the teaching that the additional
controller is adapted to change the sorption column to a safe mode when a
failure of the main controller is detected. Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds
that the input/output card ("I/O card") of Carlisle is equivalent to the
additional controller of claim 20. Id. Appellants contend that the I/O card
does not function as a separate controller. Rather, the computer 400 of
Carlisle acts as the single controller. Appeal Br. 8-9. Carlisle states that
"[t]he computer interfaces with those components through an I/O
(input/output) card 402" which "has a capacity of up to eight inputs and
eight outputs." Carlisle, 4:40-46. Carlisle further teaches as follows:
The software monitors the various components of the
chamber 102 through the I/O card 402, controls them as needed
and detects failed components. For example, the heaters 318 are
cycled on and off as needed, whereas the blower motors 302
operate continuously and are monitored only to detect failure.
The software can alert the operator of any component failure and
can even shut the apparatus 1 down if needed.
Id. at 5:9-16.
The foregoing indicates that it is the computer that monitors the
components of the heating and drying chamber rather than the I/O card.
Accordingly, the Board does not adopt the finding that the I/O card of
Carlisle is equivalent to the additional controller of the present claims. The
Board's declining to adopt this finding, however, is not fatal to the rejections
at issue.
6
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
The Examiner relies upon Carlisle as teaching that the additional
controller is configured (or adapted) to change the sorption drying device to
a safe mode when a failure of the main controller is detected. The Board
finds that Carlisle does teach the monitoring of components, including
heating and blowing components, for failure and teaches the ability to shut
down the apparatus as needed. Carlisle, 5:9-16. Jerg and Jeong teach the
main controller, additional controller, and sorption drying device as stated in
the Final Office Action. Accordingly, Carlisle teaches the monitoring of
components and the claimed dishwasher being configured so as to change
the sorption device to a safe mode (oft) as required and, when implemented
in a dual controller system as suggested by Jerg and Jeong, the combination
would result in a dishwasher falling within the scope of the claims at issue.
Appellants Contend that Carlisle Is Not Analogous Art
Appellants assert that Carlisle is not analogous art because 1) it is not
from the same field of endeavor as the pending application, nor is it 2)
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors. Appeal Br. 10-
12. The Examiner finds that Carlisle is analogous because it "teaches a
similar cleaning apparatus." Answer 26. Carlisle concerns a chamber used
for the cleaning of plastic residues from industrial equipment. Carlisle,
Abstract. Carlisle teaches the use of heaters that increase the temperature of
the chamber and fans to circulate air and nitrogen vapor. See, e.g., Carlisle,
2:41--42 ("Heaters, fans, and an inlet for the introduction ofLN2 into the
chamber are provided."). Carlisle further teaches a control system that
"monitors the various components of the chamber 102," including heaters
and blowers, and "controls them as needed." Id. at 5:8-13. Accordingly,
the Board adopts the Examiner's finding that Carlisle teaches a similar
7
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
cleaning apparatus and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventors. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reference
describing a toothbrush found to be in the same field of endeavor as a claim
to a hairbrush based on findings regarding function and structural
similarity); see also In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1380-1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prior art disclosing springs as part of a
counterbalancing mechanism in a folding bed is reasonably pertinent to an
application describing a gas spring used as part of a lift assist assembly in a
claimed treadmill).
Spatially Separated
The Examiner looks to the teaching of Wood to find a teaching of a
dishwasher with multiple controllers that are "spatially separated." Final
Act. 14--15. Wood teaches a "multiple compartment dishwasher" where the
first compartment includes a microcontroller, Wood ,-r 18, and "the second
compartment 14 includes a second compartment microcontroller 28." Id.
,-r 19. Appellants contend that one of skill in the art would not have been
motivated to separate the functions of two physically distant controllers
because the two controllers taught by Wood have the same functionality for
their respective chambers. Appeal Br. 13. In response, the Examiner points
out that "[i]t would have been possible for Wood to have not spatially
separated first compartment microcontroller 18 and second compartment
microcontroller 28, similar or not." Answer 28. That is, the two
compartments of Wood could have been controlled from microcomputers at
a single location. At a minimum, Wood teaches that separation of
controllers was known in the art. "The combination of familiar elements
8
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Circularity
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to state a proper basis for a
motivation to combine the watchdog circuit of Livingston with the teachings
of Jerg and Jeong. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants summarize the Examiner's
reasoning as being "that features of claim 54 related to a watchdog circuit
are disclosed by Livingston, and therefore it would have been obvious to add
a watchdog circuit so that the functions of the watchdog circuit would be
present." Id. at 10.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found as follows:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
additional controller taught by the invention of Jerg and Jeong
with the control line and watchdog supervision logic taught by
Livingston to achieve the predictable result of a controller with
the ability to send a reset signal if the control line hangs or
becomes otherwise unresponsive.
Final Act. 26.
Livingston teaches the use of a watchdog circuit in a dishwasher that
"resets the microprocessor" under certain circumstances. Livingston, 7:60-
63. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to incorporate the teaching of Livingston to "achieve the
predictable result of a controller with the ability to send a reset signal." This
is not merely circular, it is the combination of known elements to achieve a
predictable result. As above, "[t ]he combination of familiar elements
9
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
The Problem Solved
In regard to all claims, Appellants assert that "[t]he applied references
do not recognize that the reliability of a sorption control device (including its
controls) is a problem, nor is a solution to the problem suggested. This
supports that the claims are not obvious." Appeal Br. 14. That is,
Appellants assert that they provide a solution to the problem of inadequate
reliability of sorption drying systems, while the cited prior art does not
recognize such a problem.
This is unavailing as the particular motivation of the applicant is not
controlling. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he
law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventors."); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 419--420 ("In
determmmg whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls ...
. The first error of the Court of Appeals in this case was ... holding that
courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee
was trying to solve.")
Similarly, as noted by the Examiner, the fact that appellant has
recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following
the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the
differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ
58, 60 (BP AI 1985).
10
Appeal2015-004025
Application 13/058,879
CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejections of claims 20-42, 44, 46-50, and 52-55 of
Application 13/058,879 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
11