Ex Parte HellhakeDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 21, 201211247076 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation