Ex Parte Mani et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 29, 2010

10676903 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VANITA MANI, DARREN L. HALLMAN and
OLGA K. ZHUSHMA
____________

Appeal 2010-001022
Application 10/676,903
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2010-001002
Application 10/676,903

2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 1, 3-9, 11-15, 70-79
and 86. Claim 16-27, 29-33, 80-83 and 85 have been withdrawn from
consideration. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A home laundry machine, comprising:
a laundry enclosure adapted to clean laundry in a cleaning fluid; and a
drying mechanism pneumatically coupled to the laundry enclosure via
an air inlet and an air outlet, comprising:
a vapor compression cycle system comprising a condenser, an
evaporator, and a compressor disposed in a closed fluid path,
wherein the condenser is configured to heat air upstream of the inlet;
and wherein the evaporator is configured to cool air downstream of
the air outlet.
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Renzacci 5,887,454 Mar. 30, 1999
Berndt 6,059,845 May 9, 2000

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a home laundry machine
which comprises a drying mechanism coupled to an enclosure where the
laundry is subjected to a cleaning fluid. The drying mechanism supplies
heated air to the enclosure and comprises a vapor compression cycle system

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-001002
Application 10/676,903

3
comprising a condenser, an evaporator, and a compressor that are disposed
in a closed fluid path. The condenser heats air upstream of the inlet to the
laundry enclosure.
Appealed claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 70, 74 and 86 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Renzacci. Claims 13, 15, 71
and 75-79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Renzacci. Also, claims 6, 72 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Renzacci in view of Berndt.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejections are not well founded.
According to the Examiner, condenser 26 and cooling unit 7 of
Renzacci correspond to the claimed condenser and evaporator, respectively.
However, the appealed claims require that the condenser and evaporator, as
well as the compressor, are disposed in a closed fluid path, and the Examiner
has not explained how the condenser and cooling unit of Renzacci are
positioned in the same closed system. Manifestly, condenser 26 of Renzacci
is in the solvent circulation system 20, whereas cooling unit 7 is in a separate
and distinct drying air circulation system. As stated by Appellants, Renzacci
fails to teach or suggest
element 7 and 26 as part of a vapor compression cycle system
in a closed fluid path. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the Renzacci
reference illustrates the cooling unit 7 as part of the drying air
circulation system 4, whereas the condenser 26 is part of the
solvent distillation system. The cooling unit 7 is simply not
connected to a closed fluid path with the condenser 26.

(App. Brief 8, 1st para.)

Appeal 2010-001002
Application 10/676,903

4
While the Examiner explains that the condenser 26 of Renzacci is
connected to the pump 22 which delivers the solvent spray to the washing
tank, and the cooling unit 7 is connected to the outlet of the tank, these
connections do not make them part of the same closed loop system (Ans. 8,
2nd para.).
The Examiner’s additional citation of Berndt does not remedy the
basic deficiency of Renzacci set forth above.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejections.
REVERSED
tc
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. K1-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309