Ex Parte Hellhake

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 21, 2012

11247076 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG HELLHAKE
____________

Appeal 2010-011900
Application 11/247,076
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-011900
Application 11/247,076

2
Appellant claims a method of operating a washing machine having a
sensor responsive to movement of the washing aggregate (i.e., washing tub)
which comprises:
monitoring the sensor "throughout a first phase of the washing
program";
filling a predetermined quantity of water into the washing aggregate
during the first phase of the washing program; and
"discontinuing the washing program after a start of the filling the
predetermined quantity of water into the washing aggregate upon
recognition of the movement of the washing aggregate during the first phase
of the washing program" (claim 1).
Though not recited in claim 1, Appellant's method is disclosed as
preventing possible injury to a child who had entered into the drum of a
washing machine by way of the fact that "a child sleeping in the drum will
be woken and stimulated to move . . . by water . . . being introduced into the
tub and drum after initiation of a washing program . . . . [whereby] any
detected movement will result in termination of a selected washing program"
(Spec. 3:4-21).
Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A method of operating a washing machine comprising a housing, a
washing aggregate suspended within the housing for oscillating movements,
a washing drum disposed within the washing aggregate, the washing drum
being configured to receive laundry and washing fluid, a motor configured
to induce rotational movement to the washing drum, and a sensor responsive
to movement of the washing aggregate, the method comprising:
Appeal 2010-011900
Application 11/247,076

3
monitoring the sensor while the drum is in an idle state with an
evaluation circuit so as to recognize a movement of the washing aggregate
throughout a first phase of the washing program;

filling a predetermined quantity of water into the washing aggregate
during the first phase of the washing program, the predetermined quantity of
water corresponding to a partial portion of a washing fluid used in the
washing program; and

discontinuing the washing program after a start of the filling the
predetermined quantity of water into the washing aggregate upon
recognition of the movement of the washing aggregate during the first phase
of the washing program.

The references listed below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Denisar 5,870,906 Feb. 16, 1999
Dausch 6,029,298 Feb. 29, 2000
Yoshida 6,460,381 B1 Oct. 08, 2002
Nakamura (as transl.) JP 02-224796 A Sep. 06, 1990
Miyajima (as transl.) JP 10179978 A Jul. 07, 1998
Omachi (as transl.) JP 2004-065408 A Mar. 04, 2004
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
claims 1, 5, and 6 as unpatentable over Omachi in view of Yoshida
and further in view of Dausch; and
remaining claims 3, 4, and 7-11 as unpatentable over these references
in various combinations with the other references listed above.

Appellant does not present separate arguments against the rejections
of the dependent claims including separately rejected dependent claims 3, 4,
and 7-11 (see App. Br. 5-10). Accordingly, the dependent claims will stand
or fall with sole independent claim 1.
Appeal 2010-011900
Application 11/247,076

4
We will sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Answer and below.
It is undisputed that Omachi discloses a method of operating a
washing machine, which prevents injury to a child who had entered the
washing drum, by monitoring a sensor responsive to movements caused by
the child at the time of a non-washing operation and, in response to such
movements, preventing execution of the actual washing operation.
Therefore, as pointed out by Appellant and acknowledged by the Examiner,
Omachi's method does not perform the claim 1 steps of monitoring
throughout a first phase of the washing program and discontinuing the
washing program after water filling has started upon recognition of
movement during the first phase.
According to the Examiner, "it would [have] be[en] obvious to
monitor the drum [of Omachi] at various washing stages, even after filling
has started, to ensure safety of babies" (Ans. 6). Correspondingly, the
Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to discontinue the
washing program after water filling has started upon recognition of
movement caused by the baby or child (id.).
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's obviousness conclusions and
argues that, "because the point of Omachi is to prevent the start of any
washing operation that may injure a child, including even the first stage of a
washing operation, detection of the unusual . . . movement must occur
before the start of an actual washing operation" (Reply Br. para. bridging 5-
6; see also App. Br. 7).
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it is based on an
incorrect understanding of the Examiner's position. The Examiner does not
Appeal 2010-011900
Application 11/247,076

5
propose eliminating Omachi's step of monitoring at the time of a non-
washing operation as Appellant seems to believe. Rather, the Examiner
proposes expanding this monitoring step to include the time of washing as
well as non-washing operations. We agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to so-expand Omachi's monitoring step in order to ensure
the safety of a child. For example, this expanded monitoring would prevent
injury to a child who had entered the washing drum after the non-washing
operation described by Omachi, that is, during the water filling stage of the
washing operation.
Appellant also argues that it would not have been obvious to modify
Omachi as proposed by the Examiner because "[m]onitoring for unusual . . .
movements once the washing operation starts may result in false positives,
i.e., mistaken detection of normal shaking during washing operation [i.e.,
deliberate mechanical shaking in the actual washing stage] for the presence
of a child in the laundry sink [i.e., washing drum]" (Reply Br. 6).
This argument lacks convincing merit for a number of reasons. First,
the possibility of such false positives would not exist during the water filling
stage of the washing operation because the washing drum would not be
subjected to mechanical shaking during this stage. Second, even if the
possibility of false positives existed, Appellant has offered no support for the
proposition that an artisan would have risked injury or death of a child in
order to avoid these false positives.
Finally, Appellant argues that "an underlying rational[e] embodied in
the invention of filling with a predetermined amount of water to wake and
startle a child is an unexpected advantage in view of the prior art which
serves to further distinguish the prior art" (Reply Br. 7).
Appeal 2010-011900
Application 11/247,076

6
We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant has not established
on this record that the advantage in question would have been unexpected.
To the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that an artisan would have
expected a child in a washing drum to be awakened and startled when struck
by water entering the drum during the filling stage. Moreover, the method
defined by claim 1 is not limited to the circumstance wherein such an
advantage would exist (i.e., the circumstance of a child present in a washing
drum during the water filling stage).
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we sustain each of the
§ 103 rejections before us.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl