Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

12094086 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017)

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.
12/094,086 11/13/2008 Young-Soo Kim 5145-0115PUS1 8556
2292 7590 01/26/2017
BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
PO BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747
EXAMINER
MCCORMACK, JOHN PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG-SOO KIM and SOUNG-BONG CHOI
Appeal 2015-0038711,2
Application 12/094,086
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES L. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—6, 8, and 10-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 16,
2008), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug. 5, 2014), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 3, 2015), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed Dec. 3, 2014).
2 Under the Appeal Brief section titled Real Party in Interest, Appellants
indicate that “[t]he . . . application is assigned to LG ELECTRONICS
INC........ No further assignments of this application have been made.”
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-003871
Application 12/094,086
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “a sterilizable drying
machine using ultraviolet radiation[,] which can perform sterilization by
radiating ultraviolet rays into a drum, and a sterilizable drying method in the
same.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of the
appealed claims.3
1. A sterilizable drying machine using ultraviolet
radiation, comprising:
a casing including a front frame at a front surface and
having a door frame at an inlet so that washed laundry can be put
into the drying machine through the inlet;
a drum rotatably installed inside the casing, to perform
drying;
a front supporter installed between the front frame and the
drum for supporting a front portion of the drum;
an ultraviolet light source installed at the front supporter,
for sterilizing the inside of the drum by radiating ultraviolet rays;
and
a control means connected to the ultraviolet light source,
for controlling the ultraviolet light source to generate the
ultraviolet rays,
wherein a diameter of the drum is larger than a diameter
of the inlet of the front frame so that the front supporter is formed
in a ring shape inclined inwardly to the inlet, and the ultraviolet
light source is mounted in a settling groove at an upper portion
of the front supporter, and
wherein the control means is configured to control the
ultraviolet light source to perform a sterilization step and to
control a rotation speed of the drum so that air flow velocity
3 We correct a typographical error in the last paragraph of claim 1. See
Appeal Br., Claims App.; see also Amendment filed on Apr. 19, 2013.
2
Appeal 2015-003871
Application 12/094,086
inside the drum is below 2 m/s during the sterilization step and
the laundry is evenly shaken.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii (JP 02057300 A, pub. Feb. 27, 1990),
Hamand (US 6,223,452 Bl, iss. May 1, 2001), and Fischer (US 2,248,618,
iss. July 8, 1941).
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujii, Hamand, Fischer, and Creighton (US 1,968,072, iss.
July 31, 1934).
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujii, Hamand, Fischer, Creighton, and Groen
(US 1,756,821, iss. Apr. 29, 1930).
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujii, Hamand, Fischer, and Yang (US 2005/0265890 Al,
pub. Dec. 1, 2005).
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujii, Hamand, Fischer, and either Gerald France
(US 2005/0166644 Al, pub. Aug. 4, 2005) or Joslin (US 5,555,645, iss.
Sept. 17, 1996).
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujii, Hamand, Fischer, and Gorman (US 3,877,152, iss.
Apr. 15, 1975).
3
Appeal 2015-003871
Application 12/094,086
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujii, Hamand, Fischer, and Orr (US 3,286,359, iss.
Nov. 22, 1966).
Answer 2—16.
ANAFYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which each of remaining claims 2—6, 8,
and 10-15 depends, recites a drying machine including a control means
configured to control an ultraviolet light source both to perform a
sterilization step and to control a rotation speed of a drum so that air flow
velocity inside the drum is below 2 m/s during the sterilization step. Appeal
Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Fujii teaches almost all the
limitations of claim 1, including an ultraviolet light source, but does not
teach the control means as described above. Answer 2—3. Instead, the
Examiner finds that it is Fischer that teaches “[ljimiting the flow of air
during a sterilization process” {id. at 3), that it would have been obvious to
modify Fujii to limit air flow velocity inside Fujii’s drum based on Fischer’s
teaching, and that the claimed air flow velocity of 2 m/s would have been
obvious because Fischer recognizes air flow velocity as a result-effective
variable {id. at 3—4). Based on our review of the record, however, as
discussed below, we determine that the Examiner’s proposed modification
of Fujii does not have the required rational underpinning, and, thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or the rejection of any dependent claim.
See Appeal Br. 4—6; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
4
Appeal 2015-003871
Application 12/094,086
Fujii is directed to a clothes dryer. Fujii, Title. Conversely, Fischer is
directed to bactericidal apparatuses housed in a refrigerator or food
compartment, which take air from the compartment into the bactericidal
apparatuses, treat the air by irradiating the air with light from tubes to
destroy bacteria in the air, and expel the treated air back into the room.
Fischer 1—2; see also Appeal Br. 5. Fischer describes that moving the air
through each of the apparatuses at “slow speed ensures that the portion of
the air passing through the passage [in the apparatus] has a sufficient
exposure time [to light from tubes T] to receive the bactericidal effect.”
Appeal Br. 5; see also Fischer 2, col. 2,11. 21—24.
Thus, operation of Fujii’s clothes dryer, in which “air and laundry . . .
is always exposed to the ultraviolet radiation[,] so there is no need to use a
low air speed to increase exposure time to the ultraviolet radiation” (i.e., air
is not being taken in, treated, and expelled) is significantly different from
operation of Fischer’s bactericidal apparatuses. Appeal Br. 5. Because of at
least this difference between Fujii and Fischer, we determine that the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Fujii to limit air flow velocity inside
or within a drum, based on Fischer’s teaching of limiting the velocity at
which air flows into and out of a device, does not have the required rational
underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1. Further, inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that any other
reference remedies the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejection of any of dependent claims 2—6, 8, and 10-15.
5
Appeal 2015-003871
Application 12/094,086
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—6,
8, and 10-15.
REVERSED
6