Ex Parte Karaaslan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

11813452 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
11/813,452 07/06/2007 Kuntay M. Karaaslan 101670-0417281 2608
20350 7590 12/30/2016
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
LEE, KEVIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUNTAY M. KARAASLAN
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).2
We AFFIRM.
1 Arcelik Anonim Sirketi is identified as a real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed July 6, 2007
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed July 7, 2014 (Final Action), the Appeal
Brief filed January 7, 2015 (App. Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed
August 31, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed November 2, 2015 (Reply
Br.).
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellant claims a dishwasher. App. Br. 21, 23 (claims 1 and 12).
According to the Specification, one aim is that the dishes kept waiting to be
washed are prevented from producing an irritating odor. Spec. H 1, 6.
Claims 1 and 12 are the only independent claims and are
representative of the subject matter on appeal. These claims are reproduced
below from Appellant’s Claims Appendix:
1. A dishwasher comprising a tub into which dishes to
be washed are placed, a sump where wash water is collected, a
heater utilized to heat the wash water, a circulation pump which
provides the circulation of the wash water, a discharge pump
which drains the wash water and an odor eliminating washing
program (B), that is independent from a main washing program
(A), started by the user or automatically when the level of odor
increases, preventing the dishes to be washed from producing
heavy odors and wherein the heater heats the wash water during
the odor eliminating washing program (B).
12. A dishwasher comprising a tub into which dishes to
be washed are placed, a sump where wash water is collected, a
heater utilized to heat the wash water, a circulation pump which
provides the circulation of the wash water, a discharge pump
which drains the wash water at the end of the washing process,
an odor detector which detects the odor in the medium air
spreading from the dishes waiting to be washed in the tub, and
an odor eliminating washing program (B), that is independent
from a main washing program (A), started automatically when
the level of odor increases, preventing the dishes to be washed
from producing heavy odors and wherein the heater heats the
wash water during the odor eliminating washing program (B).
App. Br. 21, 23.
2
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
References3
Rumbaugh US 3,986,891 Oct. 19, 1976
US 5,230,220 July 27, 1993
US 5,801,297 Sept. 1, 1998
US 7,110,832 B2 Sept. 19, 2006
KR 2004-0000101 Jan. 3, 20044
JP 2004-298276 Oct. 28, 20045
Kang
Mifsud
Ghent
Jeong
Tashiro
Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
1. Claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable over Rumbaugh and Tashiro. Final
Action 4—6.
2. Claims 1—4, 6—8, and 10—12 as unpatentable over Rumbaugh,
Tashiro, and Jeong.6 Id. at 6—8.
3. Claim 5 as unpatentable over Rumbaugh, Tashiro, Jeong, and
either Mifsud or Kang. Id. at 8.
4. Claim 9 as unpatentable over Rumbaugh, Tashiro, Jeong, and
Ghent. Id. at 8—9.
3 We identify each reference using the first-named inventor only.
4 We reference an English machine translation of Jeong made of record
September 13, 2013 (“Jeong I”). We also reference an English translation
prepared for the USPTO by Schreiber Translations, Inc. and made of record
August 31, 2015 (“Jeong II”), which we cite using the page numbers
appearing at the bottom center of each page.
5 We reference an English machine translation of Tashiro made of record
July 7, 2014.
6 The Examiner refers to Jeong as “Chang,” using an alternative
transliteration and Romanization of the inventor’s name. See Ans. 11—12.
3
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
ANALYSIS
Appellant challenges the first and second grounds of rejection on the
basis of limitations in independent claims 1 and 12, respectively, and
presents no separate argument regarding any of the dependent claims,
including separately rejected dependent claims 5 and 9. See App. Br. 11—20.
We select claims 1 and 12 as representative for deciding the issues raised by
Appellant’s arguments. These issues are: (1) whether the Examiner errs in
finding that Rumbaugh teaches a dishwasher comprising a tub, as recited in
claims 1 and 12; (2) whether the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Rumbaugh and Tashiro teaches a heater that heats the wash
water during the odor eliminating washing program, as recited in claims 1
and 12; and (3) whether the Examiner errs in finding that Jeong discloses an
odor detector, as recited in claim 12. We address each of these issues below.
Tub
The Final Action states: “Rumbaugh is cited for disclosing a
dishwasher (abstract) comprising a tub (interior ref. 70) into which dishes to
be washed are placed.” Final Action 4.
Appellant argues that element 70 of Rumbaugh is an oven, and the
Examiner’s reference to “interior ref. 70” is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case as to a “dishwasher comprising a tub.” App. Br. 11—12.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and rebuttal to
Appellant’s arguments as set forth on pages 4—5 of the Answer, which we
adopt as our own. By way of emphasis, we note that Rumbaugh discloses a
self-cleaning dishwasher and oven combination, which includes a combined
oven and washing chamber and which can be used “merely as a
dishwasher.” Rumbaugh Title, Abstract, 3:10-12, 6:34—35, 9:59, 9:68,
4
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
Fig. 1. Appellant fails to persuade us that the recited “tub” is distinguishable
from Rumbaugh’s washing chamber.
Heater
The Examiner finds that Rumbaugh discloses a heater for heating the
wash water. Final Action 4 (identifying ref. 112 of Rumbaugh). The
Examiner determines that the recitation, “wherein the heater heats the wash
water during the odor eliminating washing program,” is a statement of
intended use that does not patentably distinguish the claimed structure from
that of Rumbaugh. Id. at 5. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Tashiro
discloses heating washing water during the odor eliminating washing
program. Id. (citing Tashiro || 28, 30). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to modify the prewash of Rumbaugh to include
heating, as taught by Tashiro, in order to remove odor-producing
contaminants and to sterilize as taught by Tashiro. Id.
Appellant argues that Rumbaugh’s prewash does not use a heater and
that the combination of Rumbaugh and Tashiro does not teach an odor
eliminating washing program that includes a heater. App. Br. 13—14.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and rebuttal to
Appellant’s arguments as set forth on pages 4—5 of the Final Action and
pages 5—7 of the Answer, which we adopt as our own. By way of emphasis,
we note that Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that
Rumbaugh discloses heater 112 for heating wash water. Final Action 4;
Rumbaugh 7:51—52, Fig. 8. Appellant does not identify a structural
difference between Rumbaugh’s heater 112 and the heater recited in claims
1 and 12, such that only the latter is capable of heating the wash water
during an odor eliminating washing program that is independent from a main
5
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
washing program. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (affirming rejection of apparatus claim where structure disclosed in
prior art would be capable of performing functions recited in claim).
We also emphasize that Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s
finding that Tashiro discloses heating washing water during an odor
eliminating washing program. Final Action 5; Ans. 6; Tashiro 128
(“heating the wash water” during “soaking course”). Nor does Appellant
challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining Rumbaugh and Tashiro.
Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Rumbaugh and Tashiro teaches heating the wash water
during an independent odor eliminating washing program, as recited in
claims 1 and 12.
Odor Detector
The Examiner finds that Jeong discloses a dishwasher including an
odor detector in the form of smell sensing part 10. Final Action 6 (citing
Jeong I, 3).
Appellant argues that Jeong’s odor detector “is merely a humidity
detector for guessing.” App. Br. 15, 17. Appellant additionally argues that
“the figures of Jeong do not even show element 10.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and rebuttal to
Appellant’s arguments as set forth on pages 9—12 of the Answer, which we
adopt as our own. By way of emphasis, we note that the Examiner relies on
two English translations of Jeong, both of which support the Examiner’s
finding that Jeong discloses an odor detector in the form of smell sensing
part 10. Final Action 6; Jeong I, 3 (first paragraph: “the dish washer
comprises the smell sensing part sensing the smell of the dish washer
6
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
inside); id. (fourth paragraph: “smell sensing part (10) for detecting the
apparatus for odor of the dish washer inside”); Jeong II, 4 (last paragraph:
the dishwasher . . . comprises an odor detection unit which detects odor
inside said dishwasher”); id. at 5 (third paragraph: “odor detection unit (10)
. . . detects odor information inside the dishwasher”).
Likewise, both translations support the Examiner’s finding that Jeong
discloses two alternative embodiments, one including an “odorant sensor”
and the other including a “humidity sensor.” Ans. 10; Jeong I, Abstract
(“The invention uses the odorant sensor or the humidity sensor . . .”); id. at 2
(last paragraph: “odor of the dish washer inside detected through the
odorant sensor or the humidity sensor”); id. at 3 (ninth paragraph: “Figure 2
. . . the odorant sensor is included to the embodiment of the invention.”); id.
at 4 (fourth paragraph: “Figure 3 ... the humidity sensor is included to the
embodiment of the invention.”); Jeong II, p. 5 (fifth paragraph: “The odor
detection unit (10) comprises odor detection sensors to detect odor in the air
or humidity sensors to detect humidity to estimate the odor information in
the air.”).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant fails to distinguish the
“odor detector,” as recited in claim 12, from the smell sensing part (10)
disclosed in Jeong. Ans. 9.
7
Appeal 2016-001202
Application 11/813,452
CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION
We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—12 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).
AFFIRMED
8