Ex Parte Shukla et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2011

11138564 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2011)

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.
11/138,564 05/26/2005 Sanjay Shukla WTR-33890US3 1245
116 7590 03/22/2011
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
PASCHALL, MARK H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2011 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 SANJAY SHUKLA and JAMES E. PRYOR
____________________

Appeal 2009-010394
Application 11/138,564
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and STEVEN D. A.
MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

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 2009-010394
Application 11/138,564
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-16, and 19 under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rona (US 5,947,370, iss. Sep. 7, 1999) and Fowler (US
4,849,595, iss. Jul. 18, 1989). Claims 3, 5, 12, 17, 18, and 20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A power control system for an electric heating element, the
control system comprising:
a digital communication bus;
a controller connected to the digital communication bus;
a variably resistive device connected to the controller;
a power unit connected to the digital communication
bus, the power unit having a first electrical power output having
an on state and an off state that together form a duty cycle and a
second electrical power output also having an on state and an
off state that together form a duty cycle; and
an electrically resistive cooktop heating element
connected to said first electrical power output,
wherein the controller and the power unit communicate
bidirectionally over the digital communication bus.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

ISSUES
Appellants raise a first issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Rona describes a power unit/power means in bidirectional
communication with a controller/control means over a bus as required by
independent claims 1, 9, and 10. Appeal Br. 16-20. In particular,
Appeal 2009-010394
Application 11/138,564
3
Appellants argue that Rona only discloses a bus between an A/D converter
and a microcontroller, that the A/D converter is not a “power unit” as
claimed, and that Rona does not teach bidirectional communication between
the microcontroller and the heat generator. Id.
Appellants raise a second issue of whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combined teachings of Rona and Fowler render obvious
first and second predetermined ranges of positions for adjusting the duty
cycles of first and second power outputs to first and second cooktop heating
elements as required by independent claim 16. Appeal Br. 20-21. In
particular, Appellants point out that the Examiner never specifically
addressed the limitations of claim 16 in the Final Rejection (Appeal Br. 21),
and that the Examiner does not give appropriate weight to the first and
second heating elements in the Answer (Reply Br. 9; Ans. 6-7).

OPINION
Issue 1: Power Unit
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 10 requires, in some form, a
power unit connected to a control unit via a bus. In the rejection, the
Examiner appears to consider Rona’s spark control 42 the power unit,
whereas in the response to arguments, the Examiner considers vessel 11,
temperature sensor 12, vessel sensor 14, operator interface 16, and A/D
converter 18 to be the power unit. Ans. 3, 5.
In Rona, the heating elements (heat generator 25, modified to have
resistive heating elements, see Ans. 3) are not connected to the
microcontroller 22 on a bus but along one-way control lines 42 and 40.
Rona, fig. 1. While the temperature sensor 12 communicates with
microcontroller 22 via a control bus between microcontroller 22 and A/D
Appeal 2009-010394
Application 11/138,564
4
converter 18, temperature sensor 12 and A/D converter 18 do not have an
electrical power output connected to the cooktop heating element (heat
generator 25), and thus are not a power unit/means as called for in claims 1,
9, and 10. Rona’s vessel 11, vessel sensor 14, and operator interface 16 also
are not a power unit/means as called for in claims 1, 9, and 10. Rona’s heat
generator 25 does not communicate bidirectionally over the bus. Id. The
Examiner does not propose to modify or relocate the heat generator 25 in
Rona to include the temperature sensor 12 or otherwise be located so as to
communicate bidirectionally over the bus. Consequently, the Examiner has
not properly addressed the limitations in claims 1, 9, and 10 regarding a
power unit/power means. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 9, and 10, as well as claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and
19, which depend therefrom.

Issue 2: First and Second Heating Elements
Claim 16 requires, in relevant part, an analog input device (e.g., knob)
that, according to the position of the device, adjusts the duty cycle of first
and second power outputs to be delivered to first and second heating
elements. The Examiner’s position is, in relevant part, that the claimed first
and second heaters are the same. See Ans. 6-7. While multiple cooktop
heating elements may function as a single unit from a cook’s perspective2,
the claim still requires two heating elements. The Examiner does not make
any finding regarding first and second cooktop heating elements. It is

2 For example, if a single burner location on the cooktop were made of
several concentric, separately controlled electric heating elements, a cook
would see one location to place a pan but that location could actually be
made of several heating elements.
Appeal 2009-010394
Application 11/138,564
5
unreasonable to interpret the step of “delivering power from the second
power output to a second electrically resistive cooktop heating element” to
be the same step as “delivering power from the first power output to a first
electrically resistive cooktop heating element”; such an interpretation
renders claim limitations superfluous. See, e.g., Stumbo v. Eastman
Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim
constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous). While Rona clearly
describes more than one cooking element (see fig. 2A), Rona does not
describe how these elements are controlled, and particularly whether the two
elements are controlled according to the claimed first and second
predetermined range of an analog input device as required by claim 16. The
Examiner does not rely on Fowler for any teaching directed to the control
and power delivery called for in claim 16, or otherwise articulate a reason to
modify Rona to make up for the deficiency noted above. Consequently, the
Examiner has not properly addressed each limitation in claim 16 and
therefore erred in rejecting claim 16 as unpatentable over Rona and Fowler.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-010394
Application 11/138,564
6
hh

PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108