Ex Parte Hering et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201613498151 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) 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. 13/498,151 03/26/2012 Reinhard Hering 2009P00301WOUS 7488 46726 7590 12/16/2016 RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn EXAMINER 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 POINT, RUFUS C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2016 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 REINHARD HERING and MICHAEL GEORG ROSENBAUER Appeal 2016-001245 Application 13/498,151 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 16—19 and 21—33, the only claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellants identify BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 26, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Apr. 21, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 13, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 25, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 6, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-001245 Application 13/498,151 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a household appliance, in particular a household dishwashing machine. (Spec. Title.) Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A household appliance, comprising: a treatment compartment; an appliance door for opening the treatment compartment to allow loading thereof and closing the treatment compartment to allow unloading thereof; an operating display unit having at least one visual and/or acoustic display configured at least to display and/or signal a completed treatment cycle of items to be treated in the treatment compartment; and a detector for detecting a position of the appliance door, said detector being configured to deactivate at least the display when detecting at least one selected predefmable door position of the appliance door upon the completed treatment cycle, wherein in the at least one selected door position, the appliance door is in a position between a completely open position of the appliance door and a completely closed position of the appliance door. (App. Br. 9 — Claims App’x.) REJECTIONS Claims 16—19, 22, 26, 28—31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Griffith (US 5,151,884, Sept. 29, 1992) and Hartogh (US 2007/0017551 Al, Jan. 25, 2007). (Final Act. 4-7.) 2 Appeal 2016-001245 Application 13/498,151 Claims 21 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Griffith, Hartogh, and Kwen (US 2005/0223506 Al, Oct. 13, 2005). (Final Act. 7-8.) Claims 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Griffith, Hartogh, and Polkinghome (US 4,843,833, July 4, 1989). (Final Act. 9.) Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Griffith, Hartogh, and Smith (US 2009/0216485 Al, Aug. 27, 2009). (Final Act. 9— 10.) ANALYSIS Claim 16 A. Argument concerning motivation to combine Griffith and Hartogh Appellants argue that Griffith teaches a clean indicator light of a dishwasher will remain on if the door is opened for a short period of time in order to remove an item, and then is closed again. (App. Br. 5—6 citing Griffith, Summary of the Invention.) Appellants note that Hartogh teaches that the “CLEAN” light is turned off at the first door opening. {Id. citing Hartogh 119.) Appellants contend incorporating Hartogh’s “off’ activation into Griffith would render Griffith unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as well as change its principle of operation. {Id., Reply Br. 2—3.) The Examiner’s rejection relies on Griffith to teach the basic dishwasher components recited in claim 16 (including the treatment compartment, appliance door with position detection means, and dishwasher display means), and Hartogh to teach a switch that promptly deactivates the clean indicator light upon detection that the door position is between fully opened and fully closed. (Final Act. 2—3, Ans. 2—3.) The Examiner’s 3 Appeal 2016-001245 Application 13/498,151 rejection does not rely on Griffith’s enhancement that if the door is opened for short period of time, then closed again, the clean indicator light remains on. (See, e.g., Final Act. 4 citing Griffith 3:60-65, 5:30—34.) Note that the Examiner cites to Griffith’s switches 14/44, and not to the bi-metal strip switch 50 that provides delayed turning off of the clean indicator light. (Id.) Also, the Examiner cites to Griffith’s “Background of the Invention,” which also discloses the clean indicator light turns off when the dishwasher door is opened. (Final Act. 2—3 citing Griffith 1:6—31.) As the Examiner applies the rejection, the teachings of Griffith and Hartogh are entirely consistent and both teach turning off the clean indicator light when the door is opened. Thus, we do not agree combining Griffith with Hartogh renders Griffith unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes its principle of operation. “Often, it will be necessary for a court [or the Board] to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner states that it would have been obvious to combine Griffith and Hartogh to deactivate the display to instantaneously conserve energy when the appliance is no longer running a washing cycle. (Final Act. 5.) Hartogh does mention reduction of energy consumption in the particular context of its heating element. (Hartogh H 28, 34.) Moreover, we find the art recognizes the desirability of designing appliances to reduce their power consumption. (See, e.g., Polkinghome 13:27—29.) With this objective in mind, a skilled artisan would have been inclined to apply energy conservation techniques to all sources of power 4 Appeal 2016-001245 Application 13/498,151 consumption in an appliance, including a clean indicator light. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the desirability of combining Griffith and Hartogh for this purpose. We also note that both references are directed to the use of clean indicator lights for dishwashers, and given their interrelated teachings, a person of ordinary skill would have combined them to arrive at the claimed invention. B. Argument concerning appliance door position Appellants argue that Hartogh does not teach or suggest “wherein in the at least one selected door position, the appliance door is in a position between a completely open position of the appliance door and a completely closed position of the appliance door,” nor deactivating the display at this predefined position, as recited in claim 16. (App. Br. 7 citing Hartogh 119.) We disagree with Appellants’ argument. Griffith discloses that dishwashers have clean indicator lights that are turned off as soon as the operator opens the dishwasher door. (Griffith || 17—20.) Griffith also discloses its switches 14/44 can be a mercury switch or a mechanical switch adapted to move to its uppermost position when the door is closed and to its lowermost position when the door is open. (Griffith H 60-65.) Hartogh teaches the “CLEAN” light 38 is turned off at the first door opening. (Hartogh 119.) At the point that the clean light indicators of Griffith and Hartogh turn off, the door is open but not entirely so, and is between completely open and completely closed positions. Thus, the combination of Griffith and Hartogh teaches the claimed feature. 5 Appeal 2016-001245 Application 13/498,151 Claim 29 Claim 29 is argued on the same basis as claim 16, and we find those arguments unpersuasive for the stated reasons. Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims and therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously stated. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16—19 and 21—33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation