Ex Parte Jo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 5, 2011

10312833 (B.P.A.I. May. 5, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEONG-JIN JO and SO-YOUNG CHO
____________

Appeal 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
refusal to allow claims 1 through 12, 14 through 16, and 18 through 20, all of the
claims pending in the above-identified application.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 See the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed on July 12, 2007, 2 and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed February 13, 2008, 2.
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “a washing machine, and more
particularly, to a method for displaying a warning message of a washing machine”
(Spec. 1:7-8). According to pages 6 and 7 of the Specification, the washing
machine reads the warning message stored in a storage part 500 and displays on a
liquid crystal display (LCD) 800 upon pressing a power key on a key application
part. This pre-washing warning message is defined as one that is intended to
prevent “damage to the laundry and rewashing [that] may be caused from
overlooking [a potential problem] that deteriorate[s] a washing performance”
(Spec. 4:1-3). The pre-washing warning message within such definition includes,
inter alia, “make sure if the laundry is water washable,” “make sure if no color of
the laundry runs,” “separate cloth with much fluff,” “clear pockets,” and “the like”
(Spec. 8: 8-10).
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative claim 12
reproduced from the updated Claims Appendix submitted in the form of the
Supplemental Amended Appeal Brief filed September 4, 2009 as shown below:
1. A method for displaying washing machine warning messages,
wherein the washing machine comprises a water storage tub for storage of
washing water, a drum rotatably fitted inside of the water storage tub, a motor
for rotating the drum, a controlling part for controlling wash operations, a
microcomputer for controlling various loads and motors, and a display part;
wherein the method comprises the steps of:
automatically displaying prewashing warning messages on the

2 Appellants have substantively argued claims 1, 18, and 20 together and have not
presented any substantive arguments directed to the other claims on appeal. (See
App. Br. 5-11 and the Reply Br. 2-10). Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we
select claim 1and decide the propriety of the Examiner’s §102(b) or § 103(a)
rejection based on this claim alone pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) .

Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

3

display part in characters or graphics when power is supplied to the washing
machine, wherein the messages are displayed prior to washing.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner
relies on the following sole prior art reference at page 4 of the Supplemental
Answer (“Ans.”) filed on October 20, 2009:
Hiroyuki JP 9084989 Mar. 31, 19973

Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12,
14 through 16, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by, or in
the alternative under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over, the disclosure of
Hiroyuki (App. Br. 5; the Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief
filed September 4, 2007, 5; and Reply Br. 3).
RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, ISSUES,
ANALYSES, AND CONCLUSIONS
I. REJECTION UNDER §102(b)
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Hiroyuki teaches a
washing machine comprising a water storage tub for storing washing water, a drum
rotatably fitted inside of the water storage tub, a motor for rotating the drum, a
controlling part for controlling washing operations, a microcomputer for
controlling various loads and motors, and a display part. (Compare Ans. 4-5 with
App. Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 4-10; see also Hiroyuki, pp. 20-21, paras. 0029-0033.)
Rather, Appellants contend that Hiroyuki does not teach the limitation
“automatically displaying pre-washing warning messages on the display part in
characters or graphics when power is supplied to the washing machine” recited in
claims 1, 18, and 20 (App. Br. 5-8 and Reply Br. 4-8).

3 Our reference to this Japanese document is to the full English translation of
record provided by Appellants.
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

4

Thus, the dispositive question is: Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding
that Hiroyuki teaches the limitation “automatically displaying pre-washing
warning messages on the display part in characters or graphics when power is
supplied to the washing machine” recited in claims 1, 18, and 20 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)? On this record, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
As stated in Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.:

[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document
not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations
arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus,
cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Here, the Examiner asserts that “Hiroyuki fully anticipates Appellant’s
claims for various washing messages for display prior to washing by indication of
Hiroyuki’s CPU by setting-out exchange processing and wash-motion-control
processing based on the program stored therein” (Ans. 6). The Examiner,
however, has not identified an appropriate disclosure in Hiroyuki, which teaches
the limitation “automatically displaying pre-washing warning messages on the
display part in characters or graphics when power is supplied to the washing
machine” recited in claims 1, 18, and 20. Paragraphs 0027, 0031 and 0058 of
Hiroyuki, relied upon by the Examiner at pages 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Answer, are
silent as to automatically displaying the claimed pre-washing warning message in
the form of characters or graphics as interpreted above on the display part (LCD)
of a washing machine upon supplying power to the washing machine.
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

5

Accordingly, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner has reversibly
erred in finding that Hiroyuki teaches the limitation “automatically displaying pre-
washing warning messages on the display part in characters or graphic when power
is supplied to the washing machine” recited in claims 1, 18, and 20 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
II. REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Hiroyuki teaches a
washing machine comprising a water storage tub for storing washing water, a drum
rotatably fitted inside of the water storage tub, a motor for rotating the drum, a
controlling part for controlling washing operations, a microcomputer for
controlling various loads and motors, and a display part. (Compare Ans. 4-5 with
App. Br. 6-11 and Reply Br. 4-10; see also Hiroyuki, pp. 20-21, paras. 0029-0033.)
Rather, Appellants only contend that the Examiner erred in determining that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to set or program the control unit of
the washing machine taught by Hiroyuki to automatically display a pre-washing
warning message upon supplying power to its washing machine (App. Br. 6-11 and
Reply Br. 6-10).
Thus, the dispositive question is: Has the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to set or
program the control unit of the washing machine taught by Hiroyuki to
automatically display a pre-washing warning message in graphics or characters to
remind users of common pre-washing practices for preventing damage to clothes,
e.g., a reminder to separate clothes for dry cleaning from clothes for machine-
washable and/or to empty the pockets, upon supplying power to its washing
machine before washing the clothes within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

6

As stated by Supreme Court of the United States in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have
been obvious under § 103] need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a
court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

“[A] prior art reference must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (quoting In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). See also DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our suggestion test is in actuality quite flexible and not
only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and common
sense”). In Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2009), our reviewing court also instructs us that:
[W]hile an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence that
supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may include
recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the
person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in
any reference or expert opinion.

See also KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 420 (“Common sense teaches .
. . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in
many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” ) .
Applying the above precedents to the present situation, we concur with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to set or
program the control unit of the washing machine taught by Hiroyuki to
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

7

automatically display a pre-washing warning message in characters or graphics as
a reminder of common pre-washing practices for preventing damage to clothes
upon prior to washing the clothes in the washing machine. As is apparent from
paragraphs 0030 and 0031of Hiroyuki, it teaches that its controller can be set or
programmed by one of ordinary skill in the art to display various messages,
including automatic messages. In particular, Hiroyuki teaches that:
[T]he controller 110 is connected with a power switch 120 and
the display/operation device 200, and performs control of instructions
of the operation state of wash in the washing execution device 100 by
the display/operation device 200, and a display.
Moreover, the controller 110 includes a CPU 111 performing
control processing, an input interface 113 and output interface 114,
and a panel drive circuit 115. Here the CPU 111 performs setting
support processing, washing operation control processing, etc., based
on programs stored in the memory 112. Id. [(Emphasis added.)]

In so teaching, Hiroyuki implies that its controller is capable of being set or
programmed to automatically display messages upon supplying power based on
appropriate programs employed. Although Hiroyuki does not specifically mention
automatically displaying the claimed pre-washing warning message upon
supplying power to the washing machine, Appellants do not question the
Examiner’s official notice that the claimed pre-washing warning messages are
“commonly known washing [instructions],” “concerns commonly experience
within said art” and such “[i]nstructions and helpful tips are common and known
issues when washing laundry articles” (Compare Ans.6 and 7 with App. Br. 6-11
and Reply Br. 4-10.) In other words, there is no dispute that the claimed pre-
washing warning messages are no more than things commonly or known to be
done by users prior to washing the clothes in a washing machine. Thus, reminding
such users of such common pre-washing practices to prevent inadvertent damages
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

8

to the clothes, e.g., warn users to separate clothes for dry cleaning from clothes for
machine-washable, empty the pockets, and/or separate clothes likelihood of color
run from the rest of the clothes, prior to washing the clothes, in the form of an
automatic character or graphic warning on the display part of the washing machine
taught by Hiroyuki is well within common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art
inasmuch as the use of such reminder (the claimed pre-washing warning message)
is reasonable expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize or reduce any
unwanted damage to clothes during their washing in a washing machine.
Accordingly, based on the totality of record, including due consideration of
Appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs
most heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1
through 12, 14 through 16, and 18 through 20 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 12,
14 through 16, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Hiroyuki is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1 through 12, 14 through 16, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Hiroyuki is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that 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

tc
Appeal No. 2010-001442
Application 10/312,833

9