Ex Parte Park

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 6, 2012

10516604 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 6, 2012)

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.
10/516,604 12/03/2004 Seok Kyu Park 9988.175.00 7108
30827 7590 03/07/2012
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SEOK KYU PARK
________________

Appeal 2011-001864
Application 10/516,604
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, MARK NAGUMO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-35, and 41,
all the claims remaining in the present application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for cleaning a tub of a washing machine, comprising the
steps of:

Appeal 2011-001864
Application 10/516,604

2
supplying water to a tub with rotating the tub without introduction of
laundry into the tub, wherein supplying water and rotating the tub are
performed at the same time;

permeating water into contaminants;

removing contaminants stuck to a surface of the tub by rotating a tub
or a pulsator in the tub;

soaking the contaminants for a predetermined time period by holding
the tub and the pulsator stationary after removing contaminants by rotating
the tub or the pulsator is completed;

separating soaked contaminants from the surface of the tub; and
draining water from the tub.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 3-4):
Smith 2,588,774 May 27, 1947
Sharpe 3,770,376 Nov. 06, 1973
Hudson 4,618,444 Oct. 21, 1986
Pastryk 5,167,722 Dec. 01, 1992
Blair 2002/0128729 A1 Sep. 12, 2002
Kim KR 2001-0093969 A Oct. 31, 2001
Iwai JP 2002-346288 A Dec. 03, 2002

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for cleaning the
tub of a washing machine that is free of laundry. The method entails
supplying water to a rotating tub to permeate and remove contaminants stuck
to the surface of the tub. The tub is then held stationary while the
contaminants are soaked for a predetermined time period, and then the
separated soaked contaminants are drained from the tub.
Appeal 2011-001864
Application 10/516,604

3
Appealed claims 1-5, 7-35, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.1 The appealed claims also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-18, 20-30, 32, 35, and 41 over Sharpe,
(b) Claims 7, 10, 31, 33, and 34 over Sharpe in view of Kim, and
(c) Claim 19 over Sharpe in view of Iwai.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Sharpe, like Appellant, discloses a method for
cleaning a tub of a washing machine comprising supplying water to the tub
of the washing machine, rotating the tub, soaking the contaminants in the
tub, and draining the water from the tub. As acknowledged by the
Examiner, Sharpe is silent with respect to adding water to the tub while it is
rotating and soaking the contaminants in the tub while the tub is stationary.
However, we are convinced that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to supply the cleansing water to the tub while it is
either stationary, or rotating as claimed. As noted by the Examiner, it is
generally a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to
change the order of the steps of a known process in the absence of
unexpected results. Appellant has proffered no objective evidence that

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement.
Appeal 2011-001864
Application 10/516,604

4
rotating the tub while supplying water produces an unexpected improvement
vis-à-vis rotating the tub after the water is supplied. Also, Appellant has not
demonstrated any unexpected result attached to soaking the contaminants for
a period of time while the tub is stationary. It only stands to reason that the
longer the contaminants are soaked the more readily they will be removed
from the surface of the tub (unless the contaminants “harden” in the
presence of clean water). It also logically follows that the longer the tub is
rotated during soaking the greater the rate of removal of the contaminants.
We are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to resort to
only routine experimentation to determine the optimum soaking and rotation
time to effect the most efficient removal of contaminants.
Appellant also contends that “Sharpe does not teach or suggest
‘supplying clean water to the tub a second time after draining water from the
tub for the first time and supplying water to the surface of the tub are
completed,’ as claimed” (Reply Br. 9, first para.). However, we have no
doubt that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
repeat the supply of clean water to the tub as many times as it is necessary to
bring about the degree of cleaning required or desired. Appellant has not
established that supplying clean water to the tub a second time after draining
produces an unexpected result.
Appellant does not present a separate substantive argument against the
§ 103 rejection of claims 7, 10, 31, 33, and 34 over Sharpe in view of Kim.
Nor has Appellant provided a separate, substantive argument against the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 over Sharpe in view of Iwai.
We also fully concur with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to display the accumulated
Appeal 2011-001864
Application 10/516,604

5
number of washing courses performed by the machine after cleaning the tub.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Blair evidences that it was known in the art
to display the total number of times a cycle of a washing machine has been
activated.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the Specification demonstrates
unexpected results for reduced washing time and power consumption
compared to the cleaning method of related prior art, we refer to page 18 of
the Examiner’s Answer for reasons why Appellant’s argument has little
probative value. Appellant has not demonstrated that the so-called related
prior art corresponds to the method of cleaning disclosed by Sharpe. Nor
has Appellant established that the asserted improvement over the method of
the related prior art would have been truly unexpected by one of ordinary
skill in the art.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. We agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the
art, when reading the claim language in light of the Specification, would
understand that contaminants are removed from the surface of the tub while
it is rotating and additional contaminants may be removed from the surface
of the tub after soaking. Certainly, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that if all the contaminants were removed from the surface of the
tub during the rotation step, there would be no contaminants available for
removal during the subsequent soaking.
We also agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the terms “water” and “clean water” are used
interchangeably in the appealed claims. We note Appellant’s offer to amend
the claims appropriately for clarification.
Appeal 2011-001864
Application 10/516,604

6
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl