Ex Parte Lu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613058883 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/058,883 02/14/2011 46726 7590 06/01/2016 BSH Home Appliances Corporation 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Songtao Lu 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2008P03270WOUS 4795 EXAMINER SHAIKH, MERAJ A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SONGTAO LU, ALEXANDER RUPP, and LISHENG ZHANG Appeal2014-005215 Application 13/058,883 1 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 15-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. BACKGROUND According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to an automatic ice dispenser for mounting within a refrigeration device, in particular a domestic refrigeration device, and to a refrigeration device fitted with such an icemaker." Spec. i-f 1. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2014-005215 Application 13/058,883 CLAHvIS Claims 15-34 are on appeal. Claim 15 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 15. An ice dispenser for making and storing ice and for locating in a freezer compartment of a domestic appliance, the ice dispenser comprising: an ice storage container housing; an ice storage container for storing the ice made by the ice dispenser, the ice storage container being removable from the ice storage container housing; and an ice generator having a hollow mold which is filled with water to make the ice, wherein the ice storage container housing and the ice generator are combined into one modular unit that is configured to be removable from the freezer compartment of the domestic appliance, and the one modular unit is configured such that a cooling function of the freezer compartment remains operational when the one modular unit is removed from the freezer compartment. Appeal Br. 15. REJECTIONS2 I. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. The Examiner rejects claims 15-18 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coulter3 in view of Ito. 4 2 Although listed as rejected on the cover page, the Final Action does not list rejections including claims 20-22, 24, 25, and 32. See Final Action 1- 15. 3 Coulter et al., US 2006/0260351 Al, pub. Nov. 23, 2006. 4 Ito et al., US 2007/0089441 Al, pub. Apr. 26, 2007. 2 Appeal2014-005215 Application 13/058,883 III. The Examiner rejects claims 19, 26, 27, 31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coulter in view of Ito and Anderson. 5 IV. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coulter in view of Ito and Kim. 6 V. The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coulter in view of Ito and Lee. 7 DISCUSSION Rejection I With respect to the rejection of claims 16 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, Appellants do not address the merits of the rejection and indicate that claims 16 and 30 will be cancelled after appeal. Appeal Br. 7. Because Appellants have not shown any reversible error, we summarily sustain this rejection. Rejection 11-V With respect to the rejection of independent claims 15 and 29, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Coulter does not disclose a modular ice making unit that is configured such that a cooling function of the freezer remains operational when the unit is removed as required by claim 15 and similarly required by claim 29. Specifically, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not shown that either Coulter's refrigerator or freezer remains operational when the ice maker unit is removed. 5 Anderson et al., US 2006/0266067 Al, pub. Nov. 30, 2006. 6 Kim et al., US 8,196,418 B2, iss. June 12, 2012. 7 Lee et al., WO 2008/082129 Al, pub. July 10, 2008. 3 Appeal2014-005215 Application 13/058,883 Appellants argue that removing Coulter's ice maker would result in subfreezing air circulating in the refrigerator compartment, thus showing that Coulter' s ice maker is not configured such that the refrigerator remains operational when the ice maker is removed. See Appeal Br. 9-11. The Examiner finds that Coulter's ice storage container and ice generator are one modular unit that may be removed and that the air supplied to the refrigerator compartment does not depend on the presence of the modular unit. Final Action 4--5 (citing Coulter, Figs. 5, 7, 10, 11; i-fi-f 148, 155-159). The Examiner also finds that the cold air supplied from the back of the refrigerator enters both the ice maker and the refrigerator compartment, that the supply and return air ducts are present when the ice maker is removed, and thus, "the design of Coulter allows the refrigerator to function without the ice maker assembly being in the refrigerator compartment." Ans. 1 7. However, Coulter describes the ductwork in the refrigerator/freezer at paragraphs 105-108, indicating that any air going to the refrigerator first goes through the ice maker. Specifically, Coulter describes that the cold air comes from a fan 36 through cold air duct 30 and into the ice maker 22, and Coulter describes that the ice maker has an opening 44 through which air is vented into the refrigerator compartment. Coulter i-fi-f l 05, 107. Although, the Examiner finds that the ductwork remains when the ice maker is removed and that the device could provide cold air to the refrigerator compartment when the ice maker is removed, the claim requires that the appliance is configured to remain operational when the ice maker is removed. We find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this 4 Appeal2014-005215 Application 13/058,883 limitation requires that the appliance cools food at an appropriate temperature, rather than simply providing cold air, when the modular ice making unit is removed. The Examiner has not shown that Coulter teaches or suggests this requirement with respect to Coulter's refrigerator compartment. We are also persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has not shown that Coulter's freezer would remain operational if the ice maker is removed. See Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner finds that "there is no lack of channeling the air by ducting back to the freezer compartment (Figure 3), which implies that the freezer compartment of Coulter would remain operational even if the ice maker assembly was removed from the refrigerator compartment." Ans. 19. We disagree for reasons similar to those provided above. Specifically, while the ductwork at the back of Coulter would remain in place if the ice maker were removed, Coulter specifically describes, with respect to Figure 3, that a portion of the cold air "from the ice making compartment 22 is directed through the return air duct 3 8 to the freezer compartment 14." Coulter i-f 107. It is not clear if this portion of air would be directed back to the freezer if the ice maker were removed. Further, we disagree that Coulter teaches that the freezer would remain operational because "the control system sets the freezer, fresh food compartment and/or ice maker cooling states even when one of the compartments and/or the ice maker is not operational." Ans. 20 (citing Coulter i-fi-1112, 148, 155-159). These portions of Coulter teach that the freezer settings are based upon the state of the refrigerator and ice maker, but they only contemplate whether the ice maker is in a cooling state, i.e. 5 Appeal2014-005215 Application 13/058,883 making ice, and do not contemplate removal of the ice maker. See, e.g., Coulter i-f 155 ("In FIG. 45A a determination is made in step 730 as to whether the icemaker adjust cuts state (ic_adj_cuts) is true. If not, then in step 734, the ice maker cut in time (ICCutin) and the ice maker cut out (ICCutOut) times are set."). We are not persuaded that these portions of Coulter suggest that the freezer can function when the ice maker is removed. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 15 and 29 as obvious over Coulter and Ito is not adequately supported. Accordingly we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 15 and 29. Further, the Examiner has not shown that any of the other art of record cures the deficiency discussed above. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 16-19, 23, 26-28, 31, 33, and 34. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 16 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and we reverse the rejections of claims 15-19, 23, 26-29, 31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation