Ex Parte Heisele et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201712593641 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/593,641 09/29/2009 Bernd Heisele 2007P00706WOUS 7096 46726 7590 05/31/2017 RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn EXAMINER 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 LEE, KEVIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2017 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): 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 BERND HEISELE, ANTON OBLINGER, and KARLHEINZ REHM Appeal 2016-004450 Application 12/593,6411 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 23—34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify BSH Hausgerate GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed September 29, 2009 (“Spec.”); the Final Action electronically delivered May 21, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action electronically delivered July 15, 2015 (“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed August 28, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer electronically delivered February 12, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed March 30, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-004450 Application 12/593,641 The claims are directed to a top spray device for dishwashers. Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 23. A dishwasher, comprising: a spray device to distribute washing solution in the dishwasher; and a hydraulic line having an opening through which the washing solution passes to the spray device; wherein the spray device includes: a spray head having an upper side, the upper side of the spray head arranged below the opening of the hydraulic line so as to form a gap between the upper side of the spray head and the opening of the hydraulic line; and a retaining element connected to the hydraulic line and retaining the spray head. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Pratt US 6,715,404 B2 Apr. 6, 2004 Jeong et al. US 7,493,905 B2 Feb. 24, 2009 (“Jeong”) Perkins et al. US 7,562,833 B2 July 21, 2009 (“Perkins”) Honegger EP 1 382 287 A2 REJECTIONS Jan. 21, 2004 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (1) claims 23—25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 over Honegger in view of Perkins; (2) claim 26 over Honegger and Perkins in view of Jeong; and 2 Appeal 2016-004450 Application 12/593,641 (3) claims 29 and 32 over Honegger and Perkins in view of Pratt. Final Act. 2 and 4. OPINION Appellants argue the pending claims as a group. We select claim 23 as representative of the group; the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 23. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—that Honegger discloses all of the limitations of claim 23, except the upper side of the spray head arranged below the opening of the hydraulic line so as to form a gap between the upper side of the spray head and the opening of the hydraulic line. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Perkins discloses providing a spray head with the upper side arranged below the opening of a hydraulic line so as to form a gap. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to modify Honegger in view of Perkins in order to optimize spray head spacing to obtain a desirable spray pattern and effectively distribute water to the area below. Id. Appellants argue that Honegger arranges the upper side of the spray head above the opening formed by the neck of the hydraulic line so as to engage the spray head with the neck, with the purpose of preventing movement of the spray head perpendicular to the rotational axis. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants then argue the purpose of preventing movement of the spray head perpendicular to the rotational axis in Honegger is so that the holding arm periodically at least partially covers the spray orifice of the spray head during its rotation, interrupting the water jet and resulting in a pulsed water 3 Appeal 2016-004450 Application 12/593,641 outlet. Id. at 5—6. According to Appellants, “if the spray head [] were not held in such a manner, the water jet interruption design would be defeated" Id. at 6 (emphasis in original). Appellants contend that Perkins teaches sprinkler heads that nutate, or wobble, and that it is critical that the water distribute plate of Perkins reliably and consistently remain in a tilted orientation while rotating to achieve the desired nutating action. Id. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the nutating design of Perkins in Honegger’s system, since the nutating design would not allow for water jet interruption which is the purpose of Honegger’s design. Id. The Examiner responds that Perkins discloses a gap between the hydraulic line and the spray head wherein “a solid stream of water that passes through the spindle [] to atmosphere, and toward a [water] distribution plate” (akin to the spray head of Honegger). Ans. 3 (citing Perkins col. 3,11. 41^42). “[T]he combination of Honegger in view of Perkins simply requires adding a gap between the opening of the hydraulic line and the upper side of the spray head of Honegger, irrespective of the nutating feature of Perkins.” Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that the simple modification of adding a gap would have no impact on interruption of the jet spray, as the spray head openings would still rotate past the stationary holding arms. Id. at 6. “A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appellants’ argument against combining the teachings of Honegger with the gap disclosed by Perkins is not persuasive. Appellants have not shown that 4 Appeal 2016-004450 Application 12/593,641 Honegger’s water jet interruption design would be defeated by implementation of a gap between the hydraulic line and the spray head. Moreover, predictable tradeoffs support obviousness. In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d. 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if Appellants were correct that the water jet interruption design would be defeated, a combination of references may be obvious even if the combination eliminates a benefit of one of the references. See id. at 1243. Sacrificing one benefit to gain another in a predictable manner does not negate a reason to combine. We are not persuaded that the disclosure of Perkins indicates that Honegger would be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose by the proposed combination. The Examiner did not err in determining claim 23 to be obvious over Honegger in view of Perkins. Because the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 23, they are argued as a group, claims 24—34 are likewise obvious. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23—34 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation