Ex Parte Rigolle et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 201713511219 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/511,219 05/22/2012 Thibaut Rigolle AEG-49470 6000 86378 7590 02/24/2017 Pearne Rr frnrHnn T T P EXAMINER 1801 East 9th Street HOANG, MICHAEL G Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH 44114-3108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2017 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): patdocket@peame.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THIBAUT RIGOLLE, JEANNETEAU LAURENT, ALEX VIROLI, and FILIPPO MARTINI Appeal 2015-0015451 Application 13/511,2192 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 28, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 14, 2014), and the Substitute Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 24, 2013), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 15, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Oct. 31, 2013). 2 Appellants identify Electrolux Home Products Corporation N. V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-001545 Application 13/511,219 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to an induction hob with induction coils within a cooking surface and an apparatus for determining the temperatures on the induction coils.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An induction hob with a number of induction coils (12) on a cooking surface (10) and an apparatus for determining temperatures on the induction coils (12), wherein: the induction coils (12) are arranged on the cooking surface (10) according to a predetermined scheme, at least one temperature sensor (14, 16, 18, 20[,] 24, 26) is arranged within an intermediate space between two or more of the induction coils (12), at least one further temperature sensor (14, 16, 18, 20; 24, 26) is arranged within at least one further intermediate space between two or more of the induction coils (12), the at least one temperature sensor (14, 16, 18, 20; 24, 26) and the central portions of at least two adjacent coils of the induction coils (12) are thermally connected by heat conductor elements (22), and the at least one temperature sensor (14, 16, 18, 20; 24, 26) is connected to at least one evaluation circuit for determining the temperatures of the at least two adjacent induction coils (12). REJECTIONS3 Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fournier (EP 1575336 Al, pub. Sept. 14, 2005).4 3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 4 The Examiner relies on a machine-generated, English-language translation of EP 1575336 Al, which we refer to as “Fournier.” 2 Appeal 2015-001545 Application 13/511,219 Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier and Comec (US 7,361,870 B2, iss. Apr. 22, 2008). Claim 3 is rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier and Schilling (US 2007/0262072 Al, pub. Nov. 15, 2007). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier, Akel (US 6,498,325 Bl, iss. Dec. 24, 2002), and Lee (US 2009/0212042 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier and Baier (US 8,188,409 B2, iss. May 29, 2012). Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier and Kondo (US 2006/0091135 Al, pub. May 4, 2006). Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier, Kondo, and Akel.5 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier, Kondo, Akel, and Baier. ANALYSIS Anticipation Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b) because Fournier does not disclose an induction hob with a number of induction coils on a cooking surface and an apparatus for determining temperatures on the 5 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as set forth at pages 11—12 of the Final Action, and instead rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fournier, Kondo, and Akel. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal 2015-001545 Application 13/511,219 induction coils, wherein “at least one temperature sensor (14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26) and the central portions of at least two adjacent coils of the induction coils (12) are thermally connected by heat conductor elements (22),” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13—16; see also Reply Br. 2—3. The Examiner relies on Figure 4 and paragraph 9 of Fournier as disclosing the argued limitation. Final Act. 4. Fournier relates to a cooking zone for inductively heating a cooking vessel placed on top of the cooking zone. Fournier, 11. The top of the cooking zone is a non-magnetic support plate 20, and the cooking zone has at least two induction coils 2 under the support plate. Id. 11, Figs. 1, 12. The coils are grouped in modules 1, each module 1 having at least two induction coils 2. Id. 13; see also id. 16, Fig. 2. Each module 1 has a temperature measuring device 5 for measuring the temperature of a container that is at least partially covering the module. Id. 13. Temperature measuring device 5 includes: (1) temperature sensor 7, and (2) heat conductor 6 placed in thermal contact with the temperature sensor. Id. 3, 9, Fig. 4. Heat conductor 6 extends above each induction coil 2 to prevent overheating of the containers. Id. Temperature measuring device 5 is in thermal contact with support plate 20 supporting the containers, and is “thermally insulated from [] induction coil 2 so that it is not influenced by the temperature of [] induction coil 2.” Id. 19. The Examiner finds that “heat conductor elements (6) are separate components that are connected to the temperature measuring device (5) [and] are not insulated from the induction coils (2).” Ans. 4 (citing Fournier 19). The Examiner reasons that because heat conductor elements 6 are aluminum, which is a material that is inductively heated, and are not 4 Appeal 2015-001545 Application 13/511,219 thermally insulated from coils 2, inductive heat would occur among heat conductor elements 6, cooking surface 20, and coils 2. Ans. 2—\\ see also Final Act. 13—14. Fournier expressly describes that temperature measuring device 5 comprises temperature sensor 7 and heat conductor 6, and is thermally insulated from coils 2. See Fournier, 13 (“measuring means comprises a temperature sensor . . . and a heat conductor placed in thermal contact with the temperature sensor.”), claim 6 (“means 5 for measuring temperature comprises a temperature sensor [7] . . . and a heat conductor 6 placed in thermal contact with the temperature sensor 7”), 19 (“temperature measuring device 5 is . . . thermally insulated from the induction coil 2 so that it is not influenced by the temperature of the induction coif’). Because heat conductor 6 is a part of temperature measuring device 5 and temperature measuring device 5 is thermally insulated from coil 2, it follows that heat conductor 6 also is thermally insulated from coils 2, as asserted by Appellants. See Appeal Br. 15—16. Therefore, the Examiner does not sufficiently support a finding that heat conductor 6 thermally connects temperature sensor 7 and the central portions of at least two adjacent coils 2, as required by claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Obviousness Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the 5 Appeal 2015-001545 Application 13/511,219 Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 for the same reasons set forth with respect to independent claim 1. Independent Claim 14 Independent claim 14 includes language substantially similar to the language of claim 1, and stands rejected based on the same erroneous findings. See Final Act. 11 (citing Fourier, 19). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 14 for the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation