Ex Parte Son et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

11980781 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111980,781 10/31/2007
30827 7590 09/29/2016
Dentons US LLP
1900 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chang Woo Son
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
9988.474.00 6753
EXAMINER
LU,JIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
mlaip@dentons.com
paul.fugitt@dentons.com
mlapto@mckennalong.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANG WOO SON, SANG HUN BAE, CHUL JIN CHOI,
DONG HYUN KIM, YOUNG BOK SON, and HEUNG JAE KIM
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chang Woo Son et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's October 10, 2013 non-final decision ("Non-Final Act.")
rejecting claims 1-10 and 13-18.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG Electronics Inc.
Br. 3.
2 Claims 11, 12, and 19 are canceled. Id. at 5.
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "a laundry dryer that can prevent as
well as remove wrinkles of laundry." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 13, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A laundry machine comprising:
a cabinet;
a drum rotatably provided in a cabinet to receive laundry
for washing or drying;
a water supply source configured to be detachable from
the laundry machine, the water supply source holding water
therein;
a steam generator to generate steam with water supplied
from the water supply source, the steam generator including an
electrical heater and provided in a predetermined portion of the
cabinet separately from the water supply source; and
a pump to pump the water of the water supply source to
the steam generator, wherein an operation of the pump is
controlled not to be operated when the water supply source is
detached or controlled to be operated when the water supply
source is attached, wherein a controller controls the heater off
or on based on whether the water supply source is detached or
not.
Br. 20 (Claims App.) (paragraph structure modified).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
2
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
Moberg US 6,718,974 Bl
Fritze US 2005/0103721 Al
Nakai US 7,020,986 Bl
Cho US 7,091,454 B2
Wright US 2007 /0151310 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 13, 2004
May 19, 2005
Apr. 4, 2006
Aug. 15, 2006
July 5, 2007
Claims 1--4, 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wright and Moberg.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wright, Moberg, and Nakai.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wright and Cho.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wright, Cho, and Moberg.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wright, Cho, Moberg, and Fritze.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wright, Cho, and Nakai.
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Wright and Moberg
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 13 together. Br. 10-13.
We select claim 13 as representative, treating claim 1 as standing or falling
with representative claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner finds that Wright discloses the
invention substantially as claimed, including, inter alia, a steam generator
(fluid reservoir base 160)3, a water supply source (fluid tank 128), a pump
(pump 204) to pump water from the water supply source to the steam
generator, and a controller (temperature control 144) that controls a heater to
be on or off, but does not disclose control of the heater or pump to be
operable or not operable based on whether the water supply source is
attached. Non-Final Act. 8-10 (citing Wright, i-fi-f 107, 118, 119, 123, 124,
130, 131; Figs. 11, 13, 14, 17-19). The Examiner finds that Moberg teaches
heaters being controlled to be off or on based on whether a water supply
source is attached, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan to modify the Wright device such that the heater and pump are
controlled to be on or off based on whether the water supply source is
connected because "[t]he modification merely involves combining prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" and to
"prevent[] the steam generator from burning out due to a lack of water for its
water cooled heat dissipation components." Id. at 11-13 (citing Moberg,
1:14--16, 2:26-31, 3:12-13, 3:41--42, 3:53, 4:64--5:11; Figs. 7-9); see also
id. at 9-10.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection, arguing that neither of
the cited references discloses, teaches, or suggests that "the mechanical
connection/disconnection of the water supply source ... with/from the
cabinet induces the electrical connection/disconnection of the pump or the
heater with/from the power source." Br. 12. Continuing, Appellants argue
3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the references.
4
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
that "Moberg is silent regarding how electrical connection/disconnection of
the heaters by a switch (or a controller) is induced by the mechanical
connection/disconnection of a water supply source." Id.
As noted by the Examiner, Moberg discloses:
As the drawer member assumes its operative position depicted
in FIGS. 3 and 8, the [drawer member] connector 94 mates with
[cabinet] connector 42, thus establishing an electrical
connection between circuitry 40 and the heaters 84, 86. These
heaters can then be actuated, typically through a conventional
on-off switch (not shown).
Moberg 5:5-11 (emphasis added); see also Non-Final Act. 10. As Moberg's
drawer member 24 includes the water supply source (water holding area 58)
(Moberg 3:54--57), Moberg fairly discloses establishing an electrical
connection based on whether or not the water supply source is mechanically
connected to the system, and Appellants' arguments to the contrary are not
persuasive. We note that Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's
proposal to apply this teaching of Moberg to Wright's controller
(temperature control 144) to thereby modify the controller to control the
pump and heater to be off or on based on whether the water supply is
detached or attached. Appellants' arguments fail to persuasively convince
us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 13, as well as of independent claim 1, which
falls with claim 13, as being unpatentable over Wright and Moberg.
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 14, 15, 17, and 18. See Br. 12-13.
Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of these dependent claims.
5
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
Rejection Based on Wright, Moberg, and Nakai
With respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 16, Appellants rely on
the arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Br. 13. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 16.
Rejection Based on Wright and Cho
Claim 6 requires a laundry machine comprising, inter alia, "a sensor
to sense whether the water supply source is detached or not" and "a
controller to control the heater not to be operated when the sensor senses that
the water supply source is detached or control the heater to be operated when
the sensor senses that the water supply source is attached." Br. 19 (Claims
App.). The Examiner finds that Wright substantially discloses the invention
as defined in claim 6 similarly as discussed above with respect to claim 13,
but does not disclose a sensor or controlling the heater based on the sensor.
Non-Final Act. 15-16 (citing Wright, i-fi-f 107, 118, 119, 123, 124; Figs. 11,
13, 14, 17, 18). The Examiner finds that Cho teaches a sensor (weight
sensor 56) that senses whether or not a water supply source (water bucket
51) is attached and a controller that controls steam generation based on the
sensor, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
modify the Wright device such that the heater is controlled to be on or off
based on whether the water supply source is connected "in order to improve
the safety." Id. at 16-17.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection, arguing that "the
Examiner has misconstrued the teachings of Cho because the controller does
not control the heater based on whether the water supply source is
6
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
mechanically detached/attached, but control of the heater is based on the
water level in the heating tank 31" and "Cho teaches a controller for
controlling the heater as a function of the amount of water rather than the
mechanical connection of the water supply source." Br. 14, 15.
As noted by the Examiner, Cho discloses:
When a user manipulates a steam-generating button so as
to generate steam, a controller (not shown) determines whether
or not the water bucket 51 is installed on the water bucket-
supporting device 52 using the weight sensor 56 placed in the
water container 54 of the water bucket-supporting device 52
(S71). When it is determined that the water bucket 51 is not
installed on the water supporting device 52, the controller
sounds an alarm to the user (S72), and terminates the process.
Cho 9: 14--22 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 26. Thus, Cho fairly discloses
controlling the steam-generating process to be operable or not based on
whether the water supply source is mechanically attached or detached. As
the steam-generating process includes operating steam-generating heater 32
(Cho 10: 1-3), the heater is controlled to be operable or not based on whether
the water supply source is attached or not. See Ans. 26. The fact that Cho
provides additional controls, such as not to operate the pump if there is an
insufficient amount of water in the bucket, is irrelevant to the control of the
heater to be operable or not based on the attachment of the water supply
source. Appellants' arguments fail to persuasively convince us of error in
the Examiner's findings or reasoning.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 6 as being unpatentable over Wright and Cho.
7
Appeal2014-008562
Application 11/980,781
Rejection Based on Wright, Cho, and Moberg
With respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 8, Appellants rely on the
arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 6. Br. 15.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Rejection Based on Wright, Cho, Moberg, and Fritze
With respect to the rejection of claim 9, Appellants rely on the
arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 6. Br. 16.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 9.
Rejection Based on Wright, Cho, and Nakai
With respect to the rejection of claim 10, Appellants rely on the
arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 6. Br. 16.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and 13-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8