Ex Parte Stegerwald

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2017

13721097 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 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.
13/721,097 12/20/2012 Gerhard Stegerwald PTB-6032-83 5977
23117 7590 05/10/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SULLENS, TAVIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERHARD STEGERWALD
Appeal 2015-006543
Application 13/721,097
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4—18, 20 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a tumble dryer with fire extinguishing
system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter:
1. A tumble dryer, comprising
a housing;
a drum intended for laundry to be dried, said drum being
supported rotatably in the housing and having a drum casing, and
Appeal 2015-006543
Application 13/721,097
at least one container positioned on a lateral outer face of
the drum casing and holding an extinguishing agent, said at least
one container having a temperature-activated first release facility
which automatically releases the extinguishing agent into a space
outside the drum in the presence of a temperature produced by a
fire.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon in the rejections on appeal is:
Lang US 1,378,964 May 24, 1921
Monsarrat US 2,470,043 May 10, 1949
Cyphers US 6,948,567 B1 Sept. 27, 2005
Hall US 7,182,143 B2 Feb. 27, 2007
Yasui US 2011/0005781 A1 Jan. 13,2011
Hiroyuki JP 60-066800 Apr. 16, 1985
Sailer EP 2360310 A1 Aug. 24, 2011
Kohlrusch WO 2011/138383 A1 Nov. 10,2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Monsarrat.
Claims 4—14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Monsarrat and at least one additional prior art
reference as outlined below.
Claim 4: Sailer and Lang; and Hiroyuki and Lang.
Claims 5—10, 18 and 20: Kohlrusch.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 20: Hiroyuki.
Claim 12: Yasui.
Claim 13: Cyphers.
Claim 14: Hall.
Claims 17, 18, and 20: Sailer.
2
Appeal 2015-006543
Application 13/721,097
OPINION
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Appellant argues that “Monsarrat
does not disclose a drum supported rotatably in a housing and having a drum
casing, and at least one container positioned on a lateral outer face of the
drum casing and holding an extinguishing agent, as recited in pending claim
1” or claim 15. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner identifies Monsarrat’s dryer 20 as a whole as the
claimed housing (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 13), but as noted by Appellant does
not identify what part of the dryer 20 is the actual housing that rotatably
supports the drum (Appeal Br. 7). The Examiner does state that “it can be
clearly appreciated that drum #24 is rotatably supported in the housing of
dryer #20 by shaft #42 and bearing #44.” Ans. 13.
Reviewing Monsarrat it will be understood that the housing in which
the drum 24 is rotatably supported is the casing or outer shell 22. Monsarrat,
Figs. 2-4. However, the Examiner found that Monsarrat’s casing 22 is part
of the drum, namely the claimed drum casing. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner’s findings appear to either read the housing out of the
claim, or require that Monsarrat’s casing 22 be both the housing that
rotatably supports the drum while also being a part of the drum. Neither
position is tenable. As the Examiner has not identified how Monsarrat
teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections as they rely on this same error.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—18, 20 and 21 are
reversed.
3
Appeal 2015-006543
Application 13/721,097
REVERSED
4