Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2009

10720749 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOUNG SOO KIM
____________

Appeal 2009-002877
Application 10/720,749
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided1: May 29, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-002877
Application 10/720,749

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-9. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A washing machine control method comprising steps of:
proceeding with a user-selected wash course after supplying water to a
washing machine according to a first water level set based on an amount of
laundry in the washing machine;
sensing a second water level at a predetermined time during the wash
course;
calculating a water level reduction rate based on the set first water
level and the sensed second water level.
determining a water re-supply amount by comparing the calculated
water level reduction rate to a predetermined value; and
completing the user-selected wash course after re-supplying water to
the washing machine according to the water re-supply amount.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Kim et al (Kim) 6,842,929 B2 Jan. 18, 2005
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for controlling a
washing machine. The method entails, inter alia, supplying water to a first
level, sensing a second water level at a predetermined time during the course
of washing, calculating a water level reduction rate based on the first and
second water levels, and determining the amount of water to add by
comparing the reduction rate to a predetermined value.
Appealed claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kim.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellant that the cited reference does not describe the claimed subject
2
Appeal 2009-002877
Application 10/720,749

matter within the meaning of § 102. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
Kim discloses a method for washing which measures an accurate
washing load before actual washing takes place. The final washing load is
based on the total of the amount of water absorbed by the laundry, the
laundry itself, and the water supplied to the washer. Once the final washing
load is determined the controller of the machine “has washing methods set
properly for the heavy or light washing loads and performs the washing by
using a washing method selected according to a result of the determination”
(col. 7, ll. 38-41). The number of water re-supply times for an elapsed time
are used to determine the final washing load.
The flaw in the Examiner’s rationale is that the elapsed time measured
by Kim is equated to a calculation of the presently claimed water level
reduction rate. However, as pointed out by Appellant, “the number of water
re-supplies and the elapsed time of each re-supply are used [by Kim] for the
purpose of calculating a total weight of laundry and water in the tub, not a
rate” (App. Br. 11, 2nd para.). Also, we find no description in Kim of the
claimed step of determining the amount of re-supplied water by comparing
the calculated water level reduction rate to a predetermined value, and the
Examiner has pointed to no such disclosure. Kim uses sensors to determine
the water level and amount of water to be re-supplied (see col. 5, ll. 3 et
seq.).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection.

REVERSED
3
Appeal 2009-002877
Application 10/720,749

tc

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE, LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006

4