Ex Parte Jerg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201613059236 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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. 13/059,236 02/16/2011 Helmut Jerg 2008P03226WOUS 8350 46726 7590 12/19/2016 RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn EXAMINER 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 KO, JASON Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2016 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 HELMUT JERG and KAI PAINTNER Appeal 2016-004594 Application 13/059,236 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 34—93 and 96—99. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a dishwasher. Claim 34 is illustrative: 34. A dishwasher, comprising: a washing container, an air-guiding channel to generate an air flow, a sorption drying system to dry items to be washed, wherein the sorption drying system has a sorption container with reversibly dehydratable sorption material, the sorption container connected to the washing container by the air-guiding channel; Appeal 2016-004594 Application 13/059,236 wherein the sorption container includes a through-flow cross-sectional area for the reversibly dehydratable sorption material of substantially between 80 cm2 and 800 cm2. The References Chu Anderson Jerg1 US 5,879,764 Mar. 9, 1999 US 2003/0000106 A1 Jan. 2, 2003 WO 2006/061293 A1 June 15, 2006 The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 34—36, 40-44, 46—55, 59-70, 76—93, 96 and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jerg, claims 37—39, 45, 71—75, 98 and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jerg in view of Chu, claims 56—58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jerg in view of Chu and Anderson, and claims 34—95 provisionally on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting over claims 34—90 of copending application no. 13/058,881, claims 34—90 of copending application no. 13/059,074, claims 34—93 of copending application no. 13/059,078 and claims 34—93 of copending application no. 13/059,237. We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and reverse the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections. Jerg discloses a dishwasher (1) comprising a valve (19) for removing condensate from dish-drying air circulated through a vertical air duct (17) by a fan (9), a sorption column (10) containing zeolite beads which adsorb and 1 Citations herein to Jerg are to US 2007/0295360 A1 (published Dec. 27, 2007) which the Examiner relies upon as an English language equivalent of WO 2006/061293 A1 (Final Act. 6). OPINION Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 2 Appeal 2016-004594 Application 13/059,236 store moisture remaining in the circulating air, and an electric heating element (12) which, in a subsequent washing of dishes, heats the zeolite beads such that they release the adsorbed water into the circulating air, thereby providing at least part of the heat needed to heat the dishes and/or the liquor used to rinse them flflf 4, 28, 29; Fig. 1). Removing condensate in the air before the air reaches the sorption column (10) reduces the sorption column’s size and space requirement (| 29). Chu discloses polymer-bound water-adsorbent beads which contain at least about 10 wt% zeolite and have a preferred maximum size of at least about 0.1 mm, a preferred bulk density of about 0.6 g/ml, more preferably about 0.65-0.8 g/ml, and a preferred water adsorption capacity of at least about 3 wt% (col. 3,11. 14-16, 22-25, 31-33, 46-47; col. 4,11. 10-13). The beads can be used in any system wherein conventional inorganic-bound adsorbent beads are used and, when confined, can treat fluid (gas or liquid) which is actively circulated through them by a pump, fan or heater (col. 4, 11. 47-54). The Appellants assert that the applied references would not have suggested the features recited in their claims 34—39, 40-45, 46—55, 59-93, 98 and 99 (App. Br. 14—34; Reply Br. 1—18). Jerg discloses a dishwasher comprising a reversibly-hydratable sorption system which is similar in structure and compactness to that of the Appellants and functions the same way, i.e., removing condensate from dish-drying air circulated through a vertical air duct by a fan, storing in confined zeolite beads (Jerg’s sorption column (10); the Appellants’ sorption container (SB)) moisture remaining in the circulating air, and releasing the adsorbed water by heating the zeolite with an electric heater to produce 3 Appeal 2016-004594 Application 13/059,236 heated, moist air used to heat the rinse liquor and/or dishes in a subsequent wash (Jerg, || 4, 28, 29; Fig. 1; Spec. Tflf 5, 13, 15, 17, 40; Fig. 3). Jerg is silent as to the Appellants’ relied-upon sorption system characteristics. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have optimized those features through no more than routine experimentation. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). If one of ordinary skill in the art were unable to do so, Jerg’s disclosure would be nonenabling under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Chu, as indicated above, provides zeolite characteristics for use by one of ordinary skill in the art as a starting point for optimizing the zeolite-related features of a sorption system such as that of Jerg in which a circulating gas is treated by confined zeolite beads. Due to the similarities in structure (compare Jerg’s Fig. 1 and the Appellants’ Fig. 3) and purpose (as pointed out above), there is reason to believe that optimizing Jerg’s sorption system would lead to results including those obtained through the Appellants’ optimization of their sorption system. Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Obviousness-type double patenting rejections The Examiner’s sole rationale for the obviousness-type double patenting rejections is that “[ajlthough the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially directed toward the same invention, a subgenus of the 4 Appeal 2016-004594 Application 13/059,236 copending application (and thus anticipated), or an obvious variant” (Final Act. 5). That bald assertion is insufficient for establishing that the Appellants’ recited claim features would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over those recited in the relied-upon applications’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness-type double patenting rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 34—36, 40-44, 46—55, 59—70, 76—93, 96 and 97 over Jerg, claims 37—39, 45, 71—75, 98 and 99 over Jerg in view of Chu and claims 56—58 over Jerg in view of Chu and Anderson are affirmed. The rejections of claims 34—95 provisionally on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 34— 90 of copending application no. 13/058,881, claims 34—90 of copending application no. 13/059,074, claims 34—93 of copending application no. 13/059,078 and claims 34—93 of copending application no. 13/059,237 are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation