Ex Parte KimDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 201311536862 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/536,862 09/29/2006 Soo Bong KIM K-0878 9625 34610 7590 08/16/2013 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP P.O. Box 8638 Reston, VA 20195 EXAMINER RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SOO BONG KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-005331 Application 11/536,862 Technology Center ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005331 Application 11/536,862 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A drum type washing machine, comprising: a tub having a fastening part formed on a rear wall thereof; a stator fastened to the fastening part of the tub, the stator having a core part having teeth formed thereon, a coil wound around the teeth, a first insulator that covers a front surface of the core part, and a second insulator that covers a rear surface of the core part; a rotor that surrounds the stator; at least one stator rib formed on a front surface of the fIrst insulator; and a supporting part that projects from the rear wall of the tub and supports the at least one stator rib in an up-and-down direction when the stator is fastened to the fastening part of the tub, wherein the at least one stator rib comprises at least one partition rib that separates a portion where the stator is fastened to the fastening part from a portion where the coil is wound, and wherein the supporting part comprises at least one supporting rib that supports an inner wall of the at least one partition rib when the stator is fastened to the fastening part of the tub. Appeal 2012-005331 Application 11/536,862 3 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kim et al. US 2004/0163428 A1 Aug. 26, 2004 Koch et al. US 2005/0028568 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of paragraphs [0012]-[0013] of Appellant’s Specification. 2. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and paragraphs [0012]-[0013] of Appellant’s Specification, in view of Koch. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in determining that the applied art suggests the claimed invention, and in particular, whether Kim teaches the aspect of claim 1 pertaining to “a supporting part that projects from the rear wall of the tub and supports the at least one stator rib in an up-and-down direction” wherein the supporting part comprises “at least one supporting rib that supports an inner wall of the at least one partition rib”? We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE. ANALYSIS Appellant’s Figure 5 includes a depiction of the aspect of claim 1 at issue, shown below. Appeal 2012-005331 Application 11/536,862 4 As shown above, supporting part 800 projects from the rear wall of tub 200 (tub 200 is not shown above) and supports stator rib 650 (which includes partition rib 651). Supporting part 800 includes supporting rib 801 that supports the inner wall of partition rib 651. It is the Examiner’s position that Kim’s Figure 5 teaches the same subject matter. The Examiner reproduced a portion of Kim’s Figure 5 on page 10 of the Answer, which we replicate below: Appeal 2012-005331 Application 11/536,862 5 It is the Examiner’s position that there is a part of Kim’s tub 2 that protrudes therefrom which the Examiner considers to be the “supporting part that projects from the rear wall of the tub” as claimed. The Examiner has bolded this particular part in black in the above depiction for emphasis. It is the Examiner’s position that this part can be considered a supporting rib that supports an inner wall of a partition rib (the partition rib is part of the object bolded in grey in the depiction above). Appellant argues that the part of Kim’s tub (bolded in black in the depiction) cannot be fairly considered “a supporting part that projects from the rear wall of the tub”. Br. 6. Reply Br. 3. Furthermore, Appellant argues that this same part cannot be fairly considered to comprise a supporting rib that supports an inner wall of a partition rib. Br. 6. Reply Br. 3. We agree. The Examiner has not adequately explained how the part bolded in black is a part that projects from the rear wall of the tub 2 of Kim. Also, the Examiner has not adequately explained how this same part comprises a supporting rib that supports an inner wall of a partition rib. In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. Because the other applied reference (Koch), and the admitted prior art, do not cure the deficiencies of Kim, we also reverse Rejection 2. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION Each rejection is reversed. REVERSED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation