Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 2009

11390310 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SOON JO LEE
__________

Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: September 9, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and
RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 34-39.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Claims 21-39 are pending, but claims 21-33 stand withdrawn from
consideration (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a dryer to be used for drying laundry.
Claim 34 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows:
34. A dryer, comprising:
a drum provided in a cabinet; and
a base coupled to a lower end of the cabinet, wherein the base
comprises:
a drum connection duct positioned adjacent an exhaust outlet of
the drum, wherein the drum connection duct directs air from the drum
toward the base;
a blower entry that draws the exhaust air through the drum
connection duct and into a main passage; and
an intersection portion positioned at an end of the main passage,
wherein the intersection portion directs air into at least one of a left sub-
passage that extends toward at least one of two discharge holes formed in a
left side of the cabinet, a right sub-passage that extends toward at least one
of two discharge holes formed in a right side of the cabinet, or a rear sub-
passage that extends towards a discharge hole formed in a rear side of the
cabinet.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
McCormick US 2,742,708 Jul. 12, 1952
Golichowski US 4,753,018 Jun. 28, 1988

The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I) Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement, for containing new matter;
II) Claims 34, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by McCormick; and
III) Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of McCormick and Golichowski.
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

3

We reverse all the rejections on appeal.

ISSUES (New Matter)
The Examiner finds that claim 34 contains new matter. Specifically,
the Examiner finds that while the disclosure as originally filed provides
support for the location of the drum connection duct, it does not provide
support for a drum connection duct that directs exhaust air from the drum
toward the base. The Examiner also finds that while the disclosure as filed
provides support for an intersection point, it dos not provide support for an
intersection portion.
Appellant contends that the disclosure as filed, including the
Specification and the drawings, provides written descriptive support for the
limitations objected to by the Examiner.
Thus, the issues on appeal are:

1. Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that
the disclosure as filed does not provide support for a drum
connection duct that directs exhaust air from the drum toward the
base?
2. Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that
the disclosure as filed does not provide support for an intersection
portion?

Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1 According to the Specification, the “present invention relates to . . . a
laundry drier capable of reducing manufacturing costs and simplifying an
assembling process by allowing one side cabinet to be compatibly used for a
left cabinet and a right cabinet, simultaneously.” (Spec. ¶1.)
FF2 Figure 2 of the instant disclosure is reproduced below:

Figure 2 shows “a perspective view of a base’s appearance mounted in the
laundry drier according to the present invention.” (Id. at ¶18).
FF3 The Specification teaches that “the base 20 includes a drum
connection port 203 formed at a predetermined height on the front side of
the base 20.” (Id. at ¶33.)
FF4 The Specification teaches that “air in a state of high temperature and
high humidity discharged to the front side of the drying drum 14 flows into
the drum connection port 203, and is discharged into the indoor through the
side discharge port 201 or the back discharge port 202.” (Id. at ¶35).
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

5
FF5 The Specification explains further that “air of high temperature and
high humidity coming out from the drying drum 14 descends through the
drum connection port 203, and flows into the blower entry 206 along the
blower connection part 221a.” (Id. at ¶53.)
FF6 Figure 3 of the instant disclosure is reproduced below:

Figure 3 shows “a perspective view of a base lower part.” (Id. at ¶19.)
FF7 As shown in Figure 3, a main passage 213 “is formed long from a
point where the pipe extension 212 [that extends from the blower entry 206]
terminates to the rear end of the base lower part 21.” (Id. at ¶39.)
FF8 As also seen in the figure, “a sub-passage 214 is formed in a direction
crossing the main passage 213,” wherein there is “a passage intersecting
point 215 where the main passage 213 and the sub-passage 214 intersect.”
(Id. at ¶40.)
FF9 The Examiner rejects claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement, that is, as
containing new matter (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

6
FF10 The Examiner finds that claim 34 “recites a drum connection duct and
an intersection portion with at least one of two discharge holes formed in a
left side of the cabinet with a right sub-passage that extends toward at least
one of the two discharge holes formed in a right side of the cabinet.” (Id.)
FF11 The Examiner finds that ¶35 of the Specification “recites a drum
connection port 203 but not a drum connection duct, as claimed, wherein the
drum connection duct directs exhaust air from the drum toward the base.”
(Id.)
FF12 The Examiner finds that ¶50 of the Specification “only describes the
drum connection duct position, not the directing of exhaust air from the
drum, as claimed.” (Id. at 6.)
FF13 The Examiner further finds that the disclosure as filed does not
support “an intersection portion positioned at an end of the main passage,
wherein the intersection portion directs air into at least one of a left or right
sub-passage that extends toward at least one of two discharge holes formed
in a left or right side of the cabinet or a rear sub-passage that extends
towards a discharge hole formed in a rear side of the cabinet.” (Id. at 3-4.)
FF14 The Examiner notes that “[a]lthough an intersection point is specified,
an intersection portion is patentably distinct because a point is a specific area
while a portion would encompass an infinite number of points.” (Id. at 7.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The disclosure as originally filed need not provide “in haec verba
support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” rather, the disclosure should
convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

7
invention at the time of filing. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding
Pharmaceutical Co., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

ANALYSIS
As to the Examiner’s finding that the disclosure as filed does not
provide support for the limitation “a drum connection duct positioned
adjacent an exhaust outlet of the drum, wherein the drum connection duct
directs exhaust air from the drum toward the base,” and more specifically,
that the Specification does not support the direction of flow, we agree with
Appellant (Reply Br.2 3) that the direction of air flow is supported at least,
for example, by ¶53 (see FF5). The Specification clearly teaches that the
drum connection duct 203, as shown in at least Figure 2, directs air from the
drum to the base (see also FF4).
As to the Examiner’s finding that while the Specification may support
an intersection point, and not an intersection portion, as “a point is a specific
area while a portion would encompass an infinite number of points” [FF14],
Appellant argues that “it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art that the intersection portion would be the point (or points) at which
the main and sub passages intersect, as shown in the drawings and discussed
in the [S]pecification.” (Reply Br. 3.)
We agree with Appellant. It appears that the Examiner is merely
concerned with semantics. As can be seen in Figure 3, the intersection of

2 As the pages of the Reply Brief have not been numbered, we designate the
page titled as “REPLY BRIEF” as page 1, and consecutively number the
pages from there, with the signature page corresponding to page 5.
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

8
the main and sub passages does not narrow down to a “point,” but occupies
the portion between the main passage 213 and sub-passage 214.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We find that Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
finding that:
1) The disclosure as filed does not provide support for a drum
connection duct that directs exhaust air from the drum toward the
base; and
2) The disclosure as filed does not provide support for an intersection
portion.
We thus reverse the rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that claims 34, 35, and 37-39 are anticipated by
McCormick; and that claim 36 is rendered obvious by the combination of
McCormick and Golichowski.
Appellant contends that McCormick fails to teach discharge holes
located on the left and right hand walls of the dryer cabinet as required by
independent claim 34.
Thus, the issue on appeal is: Has Appellant demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in finding that McCormick teaches discharge holes located
on the left and right hand walls of the dryer cabinet as required by
independent claim 34?
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

9

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
FF15 The Specification teaches that the dryer includes a cabinet that
surrounds and protects the drum, and includes a front cover and back cover,
and side covers mounted in both lateral sides of the drying drum (Spec. ¶5).
The front cover supports the front side of the drying drum (id. at ¶26), in
which a door is mounted such that laundry may be placed in the drying drum
(id. at ¶27).
FF16 Figure 6 of the instant disclosure is reproduced below:

Figure 6 shows “a side view of a laundry drier in which side covers are
mounted according to the present invention.” (id. at ¶22.)
FF17 As shown in Figure 6, “the cabinet 11 includes the side covers 112
mounted on the lateral sides of the drying drum 14,” wherein at least “one
cabinet bead 112a is vertically recessed toward the inside of one of the side
covers 112 with a predetermined interval.” (Id. at ¶60.) The lower ends of
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

10
the cabinet bead 112a are “curved with a predetermined curvature radius.”
(Id.)
FF18 Figure 6 shows two discharge holes “formed in the front and rear
sides of each of the side covers 112, respectively, and symmetrically formed
with respect to a vertical line passing through the center of each of the side
covers 112.” (Id. at ¶62.)
FF19 The Examiner rejects claims 34, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by McCormick (Ans. 4).
FF20 The Examiner finds that McCormick teaches:
an intersection portion 303 positioned at an end of the main
passage portion, wherein the intersection portion directs air into
at least one of a left sub-passage 277 that extends toward at
least one of two discharge holes formed in a left side of the
cabinet, a right sub-passage 276 that extends toward at least one
of two discharge holes formed in a right side of the cabinet, and
a rear sub-passage that extends towards a discharge hole 278
formed in a rear side of the cabinet as shown in figures 2-6 and
9.

(Id. at 4-5.)
FF21 The Examiner finds that the “claimed two discharge holes is disclosed
as the louvered portion because to those skilled in the art, louvers have more
than one hole for discharging.” (Id. at 5.)
FF22 The Examiner finds further that Figures 1, 2, and 7 of McCormick
show the louvered discharge holes being on the right and left hand sides of
the dryer cabinet (id.).
FF23 The Examiner finds that what constitutes the left and right side views
may be construed from a user’s perspective (id. at 8).
FF24 Figure 1 of McCormick is reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

11

Figure 1 shows a perspective view of the clothes dryer of McCormick
(McCormick, col. 1, ll. 69-71).
FF25 McCormick teaches:
The cabinet 20 has a cooling air inlet 28 in the form of a
louvered opening 276 in the lower right hand corner of the front
wall 211 of the cabinet 20. The cabinet 20 also has a mixed air
outlet 30 in the form of a louvered opening 277 in the lower left
hand corner of the front wall 211 of the cabinet 20.

(Id. at col. 2, ll. 30-36.)
FF26 The Examiner also rejects claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of McCormick and Golichowski (Ans. 6).

Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

12
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention
must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
During prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re American
Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim language, however, “should not [be] treated as meaningless.” Bicon,
Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the “cabinet 20 disclosed by McCormick
includes a front wall 211, a left side wall 218, a right side wall 219 and a
rear wall 214.” (App. Br. 11.) Appellant asserts that the louvers 276 and
277 of McCormick are not discharge holes, as 28, the cooling air inlet (and
thus not a discharge), is covered by louver 276 (id.). Appellant argues
further that even if louver 276 is seen as being a discharge hole, louvers 276
and 277 “are clearly positioned on the front wall 211 of the cabinet 20, and
not on either of the right side wall 218 or the left side wall 219 of the cabinet
20.” (Id. at 11-12.)
Claim 34 requires (emphasis added) “an intersection portion
positioned at an end of the main passage, wherein the intersection portion
directs air into at least one of a left sub-passage that extends towards at least
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

13
one of two discharge holes formed in a left side of the cabinet, a right sub-
passage that extends toward at least one of two discharge holes formed in a
right side of the cabinet, or a rear sub-passage that extends towards a
discharge hole formed in a rear side of the cabinet.” As would be
understand from the instant Specification (see FF15), the front of the dryer is
the where the door is mounted for accessing the drum, and the left and right
sides of the cabinet are the walls mounted on the lateral sides of the drum.
Thus, while we agree with the Examiner that claim language is
afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation, what is considered reasonable
is determined in view of the teachings of the Specification. Here, the
Specification clearly defines the front and side walls (see FF15), which is
also consistent with how McCormick defines the side walls. Therefore, even
if the louver of McCormick reads on the claimed discharge holes, it is in the
front wall of the dryer of McCormick, and not the left and right side walls of
the cabinet, as required by claim 34. Thus, the Examiner has failed to
establish that McCormick teaches all of the elements of claim 34 arranged as
required by the claim, and we are thus compelled to reverse the rejection.
As Golichowski does not remedy the deficiencies of McCormick, we are
compelled to reverse the obviousness rejection as well.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We find that Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
finding that McCormick teaches discharge holes located on the left and right
hand walls of the dryer cabinet as required by independent claim 34.
Appeal 2009-003595
Application 11/390,310

14
We are thus compelled to reverse the rejections of claims 34, 35, and
37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McCormick; and
claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
McCormick and Golichowski.

REVERSED

alw

KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. Box 221200
CHANTILLY, VA 20153-1200