Ex Parte Kataoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

12738656 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121738,656 04/19/2010
52349 7590 07114/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Akira Kataoka
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010_0495A 3510
EXAMINER
DUNNER, DIALLO IGWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIRA KATAOKA and KAZUNORI TAKECHI
Appeal2014-006867 1
Application 12/738,6562
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 12,
2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 17, 2014), and the Non-
Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed May 2, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Panasonic Corporation as the real party in interest. Br.
2.
Appeal2014-006867
Application 12/738,656
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a cooking device according to
a heating temperature set by a user. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A cooking device which includes a plurality of
cooking modes suited for various cooking and is capable of
heating an object to be heated with a control method
corresponding to each of the cooking modes, the cooking device
compnsmg:
a heating unit operable to heat the object to be heated;
an operation unit including a temperature setting switch
for setting a heating temperature;
a temperature sensor operable to detect a temperature of
the object to be heated; and
a control unit operable to control the heating unit so that
the temperature detected by the temperature sensor is equal to a
set temperature set by using the temperature setting switch,
wherein the control unit automatically selects the cooking
mode based on the set temperature set by using the temperature
setting switch.
REJECTION3
Claims 1---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Suzuki (US 6,841,762 B2, iss. Jan. 11, 2005) and Shindo (US
2006/0201930 Al, pub. Sept. 14, 2006).
3 The rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Holtkamp (US 3,680,021, iss. July 25, 1972) has been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-006867
Application 12/738,656
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1, the sole independent claim before us, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Shindo does not disclose or suggest that "the
control unit automatically selects the cooking mode based on the set
temperature set by using the temperature setting switch," as recited in
claim 1. Br. 5-7. The Examiner finds Shindo discloses the argued
limitation. Non Final Act. 4 (citing Shindo i-fi-138--49, Figs. 2, 4, 7); see also
Ans. 3--4 (citing Shindo i-f 19, Figs. 1-7). But we agree with Appellants that
there is nothing in the cited portion of Shindo that discloses or suggests a
cooking mode selected based on the set temperature, as called for in claim 1.
Shindo is directed to an air conditioner having an outdoor unit
positioned outdoors and a plurality of indoor units positioned in rooms to be
air-conditioned. Shindo i-fi-134--35. Figure 2 of Shindo shows an operating
device 30 mounted on a wall of a room to be air-conditioned having a
temperature adjusting dial 32. Id. i138. As shown in Figure 2, dial 32
rotates between a lower limit position ("MIN") and an upper limit value
("MAX") to vary a continuously variable resistance portion 35 of a circuit,
thereby varying a voltage detected by voltage detector 36. Id. i-fi-139--42, Fig.
3.
Controller 3 7, at a predetermined time interval, detects an operation
mode of the indoor unit (e.g., cooling operation, heating operation, dry
operation, cooling/heating operation). Id. i1 48, Fig. 5. Each operation mode
has an associated minimum temperature value and maximum temperature
value defining a temperature range for the operation mode. Id. i1 43, Fig. 4.
Conversion tables, each table associated with an operation mode, convert a
3
Appeal2014-006867
Application 12/738,656
detected voltage to a set temperature within the operation mode's defined
temperature range. Id. i-f 46, Figs. 6A-6B. Using the conversion table
associated with the detected operation mode, the controller sets a
temperature corresponding to a position of the temperature adjusting dial.
Id. i-fi-143, 46, 48; see also id. i-f 19.
There is no question that Shindo discloses setting a temperature based
on a selected operation mode. But Shindo is silent on how the operation
mode is set. We find nothing in the cited portion of Shindo that teaches or
suggests automatically selecting an operation mode by a control unit based
on the set temperature set by using the temperature setting switch, as
required by claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2---6. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent
claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
4