11656460 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 2012

11656460 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2012)

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. 11/656,460 01/23/2007 Young Soo Kim K-0892 2165 34610 7590 10/18/2012 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP P.O. Box 8638 Reston, VA 20195 EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2012 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 YOUNG SOO KIM, SOUNG BONG CHOI and HUNG MYONG CHO Appeal 2010-008933 Application 11/656,460 Technology Center 3700 Before, NEAL ABRAMS, CHARLES GREENHUT, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal No. 2010-008933 Application No. 11/656,460 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A laundry dryer, comprising: a body case that forms an exterior of the laundry dryer; a drum provided in the body case that holds an object to be dried; a heater assembly provided in the body case that heats air to supply hot air to the drum; a plurality of panel frames provided on a front panel of the body case, wherein at least one of the plurality of panel frames includes an opening, and wherein the opening is in communication with a space having the heater assembly mounted therein and is configured to allow the heater assembly to be directly taken out therethrough to an outside of the laundry dryer; and a control panel mounted to one of the plurality of panel frames, selectively, and having buttons configured to control operations of the laundry dryer. Appeal No. 2010-008933 Application No. 11/656,460 3 REJECTIONS1. Claims 1-8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Engel (U.S. Pat. 2,737,729; Iss. Mar. 13, 1956). Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Engel. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-8 and 12 as anticipated by Engel. The Examiner finds, with respect to Engel, “the face of that reference discloses each of the claimed features.” Ans. 2. In support of this finding, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t is reasonable to construe the control panel 16 or 18 meet[s] the ‘plurality of panel frames provided on a front panel of the body case’ because the face of the Engle reference shows it to be on the front panel of the body” Ans 4. We disagree. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (Citations omitted). 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the provisional rejection of Claims 1-12 on the ground of obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-60 of co-pending App. No. 11/918,369. See Ans. 2. Appeal No. 2010-008933 Application No. 11/656,460 4 Engel’s use of the term “top” to describe the location of the control 20, in combination with Engel’s use of the term “front” to describe wall 14, indicates that the Examiner has construed the terms of the claim in a manner that conflicts with the way these terms are used by those skilled in the art. The Examiner has offered no explanation as to why it is reasonable to construe the terms at issue in such an inconsistent manner. Thus, Appellants correctly point out that Engel lacks “a control panel mounted to one of the panel frames,” which are “provided on the front panel of the body case,” as required by claim 1. App.Br 5 Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C 102(b). Rejection of Claims 9-11 over the teachings of Engel. The Examiner contends Engel discloses the claimed invention, except for the claimed non-control panel mounted cover panel, common line arrangement, and background mounting. The Examiner considers these features as an obvious matter of design choice to recite the various mounting configurations, since the teachings of Engel would perform the invention as claimed regardless of the mounting configurations. The Examiner fails to state how Engel provides any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Engel to attempt to arrive at the claimed invention since the Examiner’s proposed modifications to Engel do not cure the defects highlighted under the 35 U.S.C. § 102 analysis. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal No. 2010-008933 Application No. 11/656,460 5 CONCLUSIONS The rejection of claims 1-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is reversed. The rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. DECISION REVERSED. Klh