Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2014

11848583 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAE-HOON LEE
____________

Appeal 2012-006471
Application 11/848,583
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and MICHAEL L.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tae-Hoon Lee (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6–14, 16, and 18–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-006471
Application 11/848,583

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a cooking apparatus. Independent
claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative:
14. A cooking apparatus, comprising:

a casing;

a cooking cavity provided within the casing;

an upper space formed between an upper outer
surface of the cooking cavity and an inner upper
surface of the casing;

a rear space formed between a rear outer surface of
the cooking cavity and an inner rear surface of the
casing;

a pair of lateral side spaces formed between
opposite outer side surfaces of the cooking cavity
and corresponding opposite inner side surfaces of
the casing;

a lower space formed between an outer bottom
surface of the cooking cavity and an inner top
surface of a base;

a cooling fan located at a lower portion of the rear
space;

a partition positioned horizontally above the
cooling fan so as to divide the rear space into the
lower portion in which the cooling fan is located
and an upper portion; and

a cooling flow path that extends from the lower
portion of the rear space to the upper portion of the
rear space, and then through the upper space
Appeal 2012-006471
Application 11/848,583

3
and/or lateral side spaces, and out through an
outlet formed in the lower space, wherein the
cooling fan is configured to generate cooling flow
that flows along the cooling flow path.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamaguchi (JP 63-201427, published Aug. 19, 1988) in
view of Tsujimoto (JP 03-011233, published Jan. 18, 1991); and
(ii) claims 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamaguchi in view of Tsujimoto and Braunisch (US 7,019,272 B2,
issued Mar. 28, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 19-22—Obviousness—Yamaguchi/Tsujimoto
Taking independent claim 14 first, the Examiner finds that Yamaguchi
discloses all limitations of the claim with the exception of a cooling flow
path that ends at an outlet formed in the claimed lower space formed
between an outer bottom surface of the cooking cavity and an inner top
surface of a base. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious in view of Tsujimoto to modify Yamaguchi so as to have the outlet
in the claimed lower space, “in order to cool the cover surrounding the
cooking cavity.” Id. The reason advanced by the Examiner for the proposed
modification is lacking in rational underpinnings, in that Yamaguchi,
without any modification, already cools the cover surrounding the cooking
cavity. Moreover, given that the cooling flow path in Yamaguchi is in an
Appeal 2012-006471
Application 11/848,583

4
upward and outward direction, with intake vents in the lower surface, the
Examiner has failed to establish that the claimed cooling flow path would
predictably be obtained by simply including a further opening at a lower
space on the Yamaguchi device.
For claim 1, the Examiner appears to find that Yamaguchi teaches all
limitations with the exception of providing “the plurality of heating
components positioned in the upper portion of the rear space.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner further appears to take the position that it would have been
obvious to move the heating components of Yamaguchi into what the
Examiner regards as being the upper portion of the rear space (see annotated
Figure 2 of Yamaguchi at Answer 6), in that this amounts to nothing more
than a mere rearrangement of parts involving only routine skill in the art. Id.
at 5-6.
This basis for rejecting claim 1, too, lacks rational underpinnings.
The Examiner fails to explain how, with the proposed modification, the
heating components which are positioned in the cooling flow path in
Yamaguchi, would be cooled as needed if removed from the cooling flow
path as proposed. If the Examiner is envisioning other modifications to
account for this, the rejection fails to clearly articulate what those
modifications would be. Absent further reasoning provided by the
Examiner, we cannot conclude that the proposed modification involves a
mere rearrangement of parts, as posited, and we do not find that the
Examiner successfully established a prima facie case of obviousness as to
claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1 and 14, and of claims 3, 6-13, and 19-22,
which depend from either claim 1 or claim 14, is not sustained.
Appeal 2012-006471
Application 11/848,583

5
Claims 16 and 18—Obviousness—Yamaguchi/Tsujimoto/Braunisch
The rejection of these claims is based upon the same flawed
combination of the teachings of Yamaguchi and Tsujimoto, and the
Braunisch reference is not relied on as curing the noted deficiencies in that
combination. The rejection of claims 16 and 18 as being unpatentable over
the combination of these references is not sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 6–14, 16, and 18–22 are
reversed.

REVERSED

tkl