Ex parte TSE et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2002

08637838 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HONG W.C. TSE,
KOK K. YAP,
and
BERNARDUS F.R.I. WILKENS
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 25.
The disclosed invention relates to an automatic shut-off
and indication device for an electric heating appliance. In
the device, an orientation signal that indicates the different
orientations of the appliance is used by a timer for the
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
2
indication device to delay the activation of the indication
device a time-delayed period after switching off the heater
for the appliance.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. An automatic shut-off and indication device for an
electric heating appliance comprising:
means (2) for sensing usage of the appliance and for
providing a usage-signal (US) indicating a non-usage of
the appliance;
means (10) for off-switching a heater (12) of the
appliance in response to a switching signal (SS) derived
from the usage-signal (US);
means (4) for sensing orientation of the appliance and
for providing an orientation signal (OS) for indicating
different orientations of the appliance;
means (18) for activating an indicator (22) in response
to the switching signal (SS), the indicator (22)
signalling [sic, signaling] the off-switching of the
heater (12), including means (8) for providing a time
delay between off-switching the heater (12) and
activating the indicator (22), which time delay is
dependent on the orientation signal (OS).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Towsend 4,203,101 May 13, 1980
Contri 4,661,685 Apr. 28, 1987
Borsari et al. (Borsari) 4,692,589 Sep. 8,
1987
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, 14 through 23 and 25 stand
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
3
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Towsend in view of Borsari.
Claims 3, 13 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Towsend in view of Borsari and
Contri.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 16 and 18)
and the answer (paper number 17) for the respective positions
of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 25.
Appellants and the examiner agree that Towsend discloses
all of the claimed elements except for the means for providing
a time delay that delays the activation of the indicator a
time-delayed period after the turn-off of the heater for the
appliance (brief, page 8; answer, pages 3 and 4). According
to the examiner (answer, page 4), Borsari teaches (column 6,
lines 34 through 42) such a time-delayed period for an
appliance.
The examiner’s contentions to the contrary
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
4
notwithstanding, the noted portion of Borsari clearly
discloses that the indicator blinks “[a]t the same time” the
thermostat cuts off current to the heater (column 6, lines 38
through 42) (reply brief, pages
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
5
1 and 2). Thus, the disclosed and claimed time-delayed period
is neither taught by nor would it have been suggested by the
applied references.
Based upon the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, 14 through 23 and 25 is
reversed. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3, 13 and
24 is likewise reversed because the teachings of Contri do not
cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Towsend and
Borsari.
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2000-0332
Application No. 08/637,838
7
U.S. PHILIPS CORP.
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
580 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591