Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 2012

10923784 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 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.
10/923,784 08/24/2004 Kwang Soo Kim 9988.138.00 6717
30827 7590 04/16/2012
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
PERRIN, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KWANG SOO KIM and JAE MUN KIM
____________

Appeal 2011-006889
Application 10/923,784
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006889
Application 10/923,784

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 11, 12, and 16-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.

We REVERSE.

Appellants claim a method of performing a drying cycle for laundry
which comprises rotating a laundry drum using at least two different
rotational speeds, "wherein the drum is periodically rotated at each of the
two different rotational speeds and periodically stopped for a predetermined
period of time, to evenly distribute the laundry from a start point of the
drying cycle and continuing to an endpoint thereof" (independent claims 6,
11).

Representative claim 6 reads as follows:
6. A method of performing a drying cycle in a washing machine
having a drum accommodating a laundry and a sensor for detecting a
temperature of an air flowing in the drum, comprising:
rotating the drum at a first rotational speed; and
rotating the drum using at least two different rotational speeds during
a cycle for drying the laundry within the drum when the detected
temperature by the sensor reaches a prescribed level, wherein the drum is
periodically rotated at each of the two different rotational speeds and
periodically stopped for a predetermined period of time, to evenly distribute
the laundry from a start point of the drying cycle and continuing to an end
point thereof.

Appeal 2011-006889
Application 10/923,784

3
The Examiner rejects all appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner considers the written description requirement to be violated
by the independent claim limitation "the drum is periodically rotated at each
of the two different rotational speeds and periodically stopped for a
predetermined period of time" (Ans. 4, 7-9).

We cannot agree.

"[T]he test for [written description] sufficiency is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date." Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) quoting Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co. Inc., 772
F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

We agree with Appellants that their Specification would reasonably
convey to an artisan that they had possession on the application filing date of
the independent claim subject matter including the limitation under review
(App. Br. 10- 11; Reply Br. 5-6). As Appellants correctly explain, the
independent claims are directed to their Figure 4 second embodiment which
includes rest steps equivalent to those of the Figure 3 first embodiment
(Spec. paras. [0060], [0062]), and in this Figure 3 embodiment the first and
second rotational speeds are periodically applied and stopped during the
drying cycle (id. at paras. [0041]-[0043]). These disclosures would convey
Appeal 2011-006889
Application 10/923,784

4
to an artisan that Appellants had possession on the filing date of practicing
the Figure 4 embodiment by periodically rotating and periodically stopping
the drum as required by the independent claims.

In addition, the Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 16-18, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tanigawa and rejects remaining
claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanigawa in
view of Lantz.

Each of these prior art rejections depends upon the Examiner's finding
that Tanigawa teaches the independent claim limitation "wherein the drum is
periodically rotated at each of the two rotational speeds and periodically
stopped for a predetermined period of time, to evenly distribute the laundry
from a starting point of the drying cycle and continuing to an endpoint
thereof." According to the Examiner, this claim limitation is taught by
Tanigawa in lines 17-23 of column 4 and in Figure 4 (Ans. para. bridging
10-11, 11 first full para.).

Appellants argue that Tanigawa is silent regarding this limitation of
the independent claims (App. Br. para. bridging 12-13 last sentence).
Appellant's argument is well taken. In the Tanigawa disclosures identified
by the Examiner, the drum rotation is stopped only once between an initial
high-speed rotation and a subsequent low-speed rotation (see, e.g., Fig. 4 left
side). In contrast, the independent claims require that the drum rotation is
"periodically stopped for a predetermined period of time . . . from a start
Appeal 2011-006889
Application 10/923,784

5
point of the drying cycle and continuing to an endpoint thereof." This claim
language requires a plurality of rotation stops and therefore is not satisfied
by Tanigawa's single rotation stop.

It follows that we cannot sustain the Examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims.

The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

tc