Ex Parte Jeong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2010

11455756 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HAE DEOG JEONG, IN HAENG CHO and JAE SUK YANG
____________________

Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: January 28, 2010
____________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from a rejection of claims 11 and 18-20. The
Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 12-17, and these claims
stand objected to as depending from a rejected base claim. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.

Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

2
The claimed subject matter is directed to a clothes drying method in
which the dryer is connected to a clothes washing machine to receive load
information from the washing machine.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
11. A method of operating a drying machine that dries a load
of wet clothes being previously washed and dehydrated by a
separate washing machine, the method comprising the steps of:

receiving load information from said washing machine
via an interface unit of the dryer connected to said washing
machine with a data communication line;

determining a first set of optimal operation values for
operating a heater on the basis of said load information, said
heater heating dry air being supplied by an air supply system
into a rotatable drum containing said load of wet clothes; and

generating a first control signal to said heater in
accordance with said determined first set of operation values.

REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Jacobs US 3,540,241 Nov. 17, 1970
Jensen US 4,836,700 Jun. 6, 1989
Estes US 4,916,439 Apr. 10, 1990

REJECTIONS
Claims 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Jacobs.

Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

3
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Jacobs and Jensen.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jacobs and Estes.

ISSUES
In construing the claimed subject matter, the Examiner posits a broad
construction of the claim term “load information.” According to the
Examiner, “load information” can refer to an electrical load. On the
contrary, Appellants argue that “load”, as set out in the preamble of claim
11, refers to a load of clothing placed in the washing machine. Using
Appellant’s definition, Appellant argues that Jacobs does not transmit load
information from the washing machine to the dryer. Thus, the first issue for
our consideration is have the Appellants established that the Examiner erred
in finding that Jacobs transmits load information from the washing machine
6 to the dryer 20?
With respect to claim 18, the Examiner states that Jensen teaches the
conventional RS-232C communication link, and it would have been obvious
to provide this link on the washer-dryer of Jacobs. The Appellants disagree.
Further, with respect to claims 19 and 20, Appellants argue that Estes merely
senses whether the washing machine and dryer are on or off. Therefore,
according to Appellants, there is no information received in the dryer from
the washing machine in Estes. Accordingly, Appellants state that the
disclosure of Estes cannot cure the deficiencies with respect to Jacobs. Thus
the issue with respect to these § 103 rejections is whether Appellants have
established that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims on the ground
of obviousness?
Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jacobs discloses a washing machine 6 and dryer 20 connected by
dryer lead 18 in order to preheat the dryer while the clothes in the washer are
still undergoing the dehydration spin cycle. See col. 1, ll. 39-43 and col. 2,
ll. 1-18. The lead 18 is provided with 6 conductors labeled A-G in Fig. 2.
See col. 2, ll. 33-43. The 6 conductors are power leads L2 and L1, neutral
wire N, and conductors which are connected to switches 55, 56 and 64 in the
dryer. The switches 55, 56 and 64 are provided so that the washer timer may
control the dryer during the final phase of the washing cycle. Id.
Jensen discloses a keyboard so that an operator can input all of the
letters of a conventional qwerty keyboard using only a single hand. The
keyboard is used by encoding the keystrokes digitally and transmitting the
digital data to the computer. The keyboard is connected to the computer by
an RS-232C communication bus interface. See col. 2, ll. 22-32.
Estes discloses a remote display arrangement communicating with the
user of an appliance when the appliance has completed its cycle. See col. 2,
ll. 2-14. The communication is by radio and the detector 16 can send load
completion signals for both a washer and a dryer. Estes also contemplates
sending the current cycle to the user, as well as whether the units are on or
off, or how much time remains to the end of a cycle. Col. 4, ll. 31-47. Estes
differs from the claimed subject matter in that Estes is directed to sending
information to the user of the appliance rather than toward intra-appliance
communication.
A dictionary definition of “data” is “individual facts, statistics or
items of information.” Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
Second Unabridged Edition, p. 508 (1988).
Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it
non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,
301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Express anticipation occurs when the
prior art expressly discloses each limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim.
Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate
when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are
nonetheless inherent in it.” Id.
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

6
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)
It is well settled that “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.”
In re McDaniel, 293 F3d. 1379, 1385, 63USPQ2d 1462, 1466-67 (Fed. Cir.
2002)(quoting Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571(CCPA 1982).

ANALYSIS
The first issue for our consideration is the proper construction of the
claim term “load information”. As noted above, the Examiner has construed
“load information” as referring to the electrical load. We are in agreement
with the Appellants that this interpretation is an unreasonable construction.
It is clear from the preamble of the claim that “load” is referring to the load
of clothing that is placed in the washer for washing. Therefore, “load
information” must be some information relating to the status of this load.
We note by the principle of claim differentiation, that the load information
recited in claim 11 is broader than the load size value and fabric type which
are recited in claim 12. We further note that the method steps do not require
that the method of determining the optimum operation values be done in a
dryer, nor are there any limitations in the claim referring to the temporality
or time order of the steps. Inasmuch as we are charged to broadly construe
the claim terms, it is our view that “load information” is any information
relating to the load of clothes and specifically can be an indication of when
the load dehydration spin cycle is projected to be finished. Therefore, it is
our view that Jacobs generates load information, inasmuch as the timer of
Jacobs sends a signal to the heater of Jacobs in the dryer to begin preheating
Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

7
the dryer. The load information in this case is information on when pre-
heating should start based on the condition of the load in the dehydration
cycle in the washer. It is our further finding that this is transmitted over a
data communication line, since data is merely items of information, and the
switches 55, 56, and 64 receive information from the timer of the washer
about the progress of the load through the cycle. Accordingly, it is our
finding that Jacobs anticipates claims 11 and 19, even if Appellant’s
proffered claim construction of “load information” is used in construing the
claim. Therefore the rejection of claim 11 is sustained, and the rejection of
claim 19 is sustained, anticipation being the epitome of obviousness.
With respect to the rejection of claim 18, we note that Jacobs does not
send digital data over the connector between the washer and the dryer. In
Jacobs the washer merely sends an on or off signal to the switches 55, 56,
and 64 in the dryer. Accordingly, the Examiner has not provided articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary skill would
include a serial bus, which necessarily transmits digital data, in the
appliances of Jacobs. With respect to claim 20, we note that Jacobs does not
transmit any information about the rotational speed of the washer basket and
the total period of dehydration. Therefore, the rejection of claims 18 and 20
is reversed.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 11 and 19 as anticipated by Jacobs and obvious over Jacobs in view
of Estes respectively.
The Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18 as obvious over Jacobs in view of Jensen.
Appeal 2009-002319
Application 11/455,756

8
The Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20 as obvious over Jacobs in view of Estes.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
SONG K. JUNG
1900 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20006