Ex Parte Mitchell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12948293 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
12/948,293 11/17/2010 Alan Joseph Mitchell 246014/GECA-27 3602
7590
Dority & Manning, P.A. and Haier US Appliance
Solutions, Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
MARTIN, ELIZABETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN JOSEPH MITCHELL and
ANDREW REINHARD KRAUSE
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alan Joseph Mitchell and Andrew Reinhard Krause (Appellants)1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure “relates generally to an ice maker and related
refrigeration appliance for dispensing ice cubes that are maintained above
the freezing temperature.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 9, and 20 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. An ice-making assembly for a refrigeration appliance
comprising:
at least one evaporator configured for generating cooled
air;
at least one fan configured for circulating the cooled air;
an ice maker configured for making ice cubes, the ice
maker exposed to the cooled air such that the ice maker is
maintained at a temperature less than a freezing temperature of
water by the cooled air;
an ice cube storage bin configured for receiving the ice
cubes from the ice maker, the ice cube storage bin and the ice
cubes within the ice cube storage bin exposed to the cooled air
such that the ice cubes within the ice cube storage bin are
maintained at a temperature greater than the freezing temperature
of water by the cooled air and the ice cubes within the ice cube
storage bin melt while stored within the ice cube storage bin;
a drain positioned at a bottom portion of the ice cube
storage bin, the drain configured for receiving liquid water
melted from the ice cubes located in the ice cube storage bin;
a drain line; and
an evaporation pan, the drain line extending between the
drain and the evaporation pan in order to place the evaporation
pan in communication with the drain such that the drain line
directs the liquid water melted from the ice cubes located in the
ice cube storage bin to the evaporation pan, the evaporation pan
configured for facilitating evaporation of the liquid water melted
from the ice cubes within the evaporation pan.
Br. 20 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
Claims 1—3, 9—11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/0237565 Al, published Dec. 2, 2004) and
Suh (WO 2009/078562 Al, published June 25, 2009);
Claims 4—8 and 12—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lee, Suh, and Stanfill (US 4,848,102, issued July 18, 1989);
Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee, Suh, and
Van Meter (US 7,284,390 B2, issued Oct. 23, 2007); and
Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee, Suh, and
Song (US 6,053,003, issued Apr. 25, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 9—11, 17, and 18 over Lee and Suh
Claims 1—3
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses an ice-making assembly
comprising, inter alia, ice maker 400 and ice cube storage bin 500, both
exposed to cooled air generated by evaporator 340. Final Act. 2 (citing Lee,
| 60, Fig. 6A). The Examiner determines that Lee does not disclose the
limitation “the ice cubes within the ice cube storage bin are maintained at a
temperature greater than the freezing temperature of water by the cooled air
and . . . melt while stored within the ice cube storage bin” (hereinafter “ice
cube temperature limitation”), a drain, a drain line, or an evaporation pan, as
recited in claim 1. Id. at 3.
The Examiner relies on Suh to teach the missing features of Lee. Id.
at 3—A. Particularly, the Examiner finds that Suh discloses ice cubes within
ice cube storage bin 200 are maintained at a temperature greater than the
3
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
freezing temperature of water and the ice cubes melt while stored within ice
cube storage bin 200, as well as drain line 360, a drain positioned at the
bottom of ice cube storage bin 200 and configured to receive liquid water
melted from ice cubes within ice cube storage bin 200, and an evaporation
pan. Id. (citing Suh 10:26—29, Fig. 9). The cited passage in Suh states, “[a]
drain pipe 360 for discharging water generated when ice stored in the bottom
of the ice storing container 200 is melted may be connected to the water tank
310 or to a drain tray (not shown).” Suh 10:26—29 (emphasis added). The
Examiner determines that this passage, together with the understanding that
ice melts at a temperature greater than the freezing temperature of water,
establishes that Suh teaches the ice cube temperature limitation. Id. at 3.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Lee’s
ice-making assembly to include the missing features taught by Suh “to
improve the ice-making operation by preventing an overflow of water from
the tank during operation.” Id. at 4; Ans. 12—13.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection provides no rational
reason for modifying Lee to expose cavity 500 and ice cubes within it to
cooled air, such that the ice cubes within cavity 500 are maintained at a
temperature greater than the freezing temperature of water by the cooled air
and the ice cubes within cavity 500 melt while stored within it. Br. 15.
We agree. Lee teaches that supplementary freezer 300 supplies cool
air to icemaker 400 to produce ice and “keeps ices frozen.” Lee Tflf 53—54.
Ice produced by icemaker 400 is stored in cavity 500. Id. Cavity 500 is also
in communication with supplementary freezer 300. Id. 1 60. Consequently,
the cool air supplied to cavity 500 would be expected to keep ice stored in
cavity 500 frozen. However, the Examiner’s stated rational for modifying
4
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
Lee appears to presuppose that ice melts in cavity 500. That is, the
Examiner states:
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would recognize that the opening and shutting of dispenser 260
in Figure 6a along with the ambient air that maybe [sic]
introduced into the cavity 500 would result in ice melting and
therefore would result in the shutter 530 and/or the dispenser 260
become blocked with melted ice.
Ans. 13 (emphasis added). However, the Examiner does not identify any
disclosure in Fee to support the position that ice melts in cavity 500 due to
opening and shutting of dispenser 260. “The Patent Office has the initial
duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it
may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (emphasis added).
The absence of a factual basis that ice melts in Fee’s cavity 500 undermines
the Examiner’s rejection, as the proposed additional modification of Fee to
include a drain, drain line, and evaporation pan, as claimed, appears to be
premised on this finding. Moreover, even assuming ice does melt in cavity
500, it is not apparent why modifying Fee in a way that would result in
additional ice melting in cavity 500 would have been desirable.
Appellants also contend it is not inherent in Suh that ice bin 200 meets
the ice cube temperature limitation. Br. 11—12. Rather, Appellants contend,
“melting of the ice cubes within the ice bin 200 is equally attributable to the
heated liquid water generated during harvesting of the ice from ice core
portions 112.” Id. at 12.
We agree with Appellants. Moreover, Suh does not disclose that the
ice stored in the bottom of ice storing container 200 is melted for any
5
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
purpose. The Examiner provides no rational reason for modifying Lee in
view of Suh’s teaching to result in the claimed ice-making assembly. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 3 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Lee and Suh.
Claims 9—11, 17, and 18
Claim 9 is directed to a refrigeration appliance and recites a limitation
similar to the ice cube temperature limitation in claim 1. Br. 21—22 (Claims
App.). Lor reasons similar to those discussed above for the rejection of
claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and claims 10, 11, 17,
and 18 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Lee and Suh.
Claims 4—8 and 12—16 over Lee, Suh, and Stanfill
Claims 4—8 depend from claim 1 and claims 12—16 depend from claim
9. Br. 20—23 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s reliance on Stanfill to reject
these dependent claims does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of
claims 1 and 9. final Act. 6—9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 4—8 and 12—16 as unpatentable over Lee, Suh, and Stanfill.
Claim 19 over Lee, Suh, and Van Meter
Claim 19 depends from claim 9. Br. 23 (Claims App.). The
Examiner’s reliance on Van Meter to reject claim 19 does not cure the
deficiencies of the rejection of claim 9. final Act. 9—10. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Lee, Suh, and
Van Meter.
Claim 20 over Lee, Suh, and Song
Claim 20 recites a method comprising, inter alia, “maintaining the ice
cubes within the ice cube storage bin at a select temperature, the select
temperature being greater than a freezing temperature of water such that the
6
Appeal 2015-006040
Application 12/948,293
ice cubes within the ice cube storage bin melt during said step of
maintaining.” Br. 24 (Claims App., emphasis added). The Examiner’s
reliance on Song to teach evaporating liquid water from ice cubes within an
evaporation pan does not cure the deficiencies of Lee and Suh with regard to
claims 1 and 9. Final Act. 10. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
20 as unpatentable over Lee, Suh, and Van Meter.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7