Ex Parte Urbanet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

11252587 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte CARLO URBANET, SILVANO CIMETTA,
MIRKO GASPARINI, and MARCO GIOVAGNONI
____________

Appeal 2011-002606
Application 11/252,587
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 3, all of the claims pending in the above-
identified application.1 We have jurisdiction over the appealed subject
matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 See Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August 4, 2010, 2; and Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) filed August 25, 2010, 2.
Appeal 2011-002606
Application 11/252,587

2
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “[a] method of operating a
clothes washing machine having a wash tub.” (See claim 1.) Details of the
appealed subject matter are recited in representative claim 1 reproduced
below:
1. A method of operating a clothes washing machine having a wash
tub, said method comprising:
prior to starting a washing cycle, letting an amount of water
into the clothes washing machine up to a first pre-set level in the wash
tub, or up to a known volume in the wash tub;
continuously taking from the bottom of the wash tub the water
previously let into the machine and re-circulating the water such that
the water is sprayed into a washload-holding drum arranged inside the
clothes washing machine, such that the water is sprayed onto clothes
to be washed contained within the washload-holding drum;
continuously rotating the washload-holding drum at a low
speed with alternate rotation cycles in two directions of rotation
along a horizontal axis of rotation;
detecting a height of the water from the bottom of the wash tub, and
sending the detected height of the water from the bottom of the wash
tub to a control circuit of the machine; and
checking the height of the water from the bottom of the wash tub in a
substantially continuous manner for the height of the water from the
bottom of the wash tub to be lower than a
second pre-set level,
wherein if the height of the water from the bottom of the wash
tub is lower than the second pre-set level, a sequence of water
refillings and water supply interruptions in the clothes washing
machine are carried out, in which each water refilling, with exception
of the first water refilling, is done until the height of the water from
the bottom of the wash tub reaches a level previously defined solely
based on an elapsed time between water refillings. [(Emphasis
added.)]

As evidence of unpatentability of the subject matter claimed, the
Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Appeal 2011-002606
Application 11/252,587

3
Payne US 5,161,393 Nov. 10, 1992
Severns US 2002/0133886 A1 Sep. 26, 2002
Kim US 2003/0041390 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Choi US 2003/0097719 A1 May 29, 2003
Bellinetto EP 1 350 881 A1 Oct. 8, 2003
Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection
maintained by the Examiner in the Answer:
(1) Claim 1under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Choi and Severns; and
(2) Claims 2 and 3under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Choi, Severns, Bellinetto, and Payne. (See App. Br.
3.)

DISCUSSION
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s determination that the
collective teachings of the prior art references relied upon would have
suggested all of the steps of the method recited in claims 1 through 3, except
for the steps defined by the conditional wherein clause recited in claim 1.
(Compare Ans. 4-10 with App. Br. 3-9.) On the other hand, the Examiner
contends that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge of
the collective teaching of the applied prior art references, would have been
led to the subject matter recited in claims 1 through 3, including any step
required by the conditional wherein clause recited in claim 1. (See Ans. 4-
10.)
Thus, the dispositive question is: Has the Examiner reversibly erred
in determining that the collective teachings of the prior art references relied
Appeal 2011-002606
Application 11/252,587

4
upon would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed method,
including any step required by the conditional wherein clause recited in
claim 1, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? On this record, we
answer this question in the negative.
As correctly stated by Appellants, “[a]ll words in a claim must be
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The conditional wherein
clause in question recited in claim 1 reads as follows:
[W]herein if the height of the water from the bottom of
the wash tub is lower than the second pre-set level, a sequence
of water refillings and water supply interruptions in the clothes
washing machine are carried out, in which each water refilling,
with exception of the first water refilling, is done until the
height of the water from the bottom of the wash tube reaches a
level previously defined solely based on an elapsed time
between water refillings. [(Emphasis added.)]

As is apparent from the plain language of this clause, the step of conducting
sequential water refillings and water supply interruptions in the clothes
washing machine “solely based on an elapse time between water refillings”
is only mandatory “if the height of the water from the bottom of the wash
tub is lower than the second pre-set level” (emphasis added). We must give
effect to all words in the wherein clause recited in claim 1, including the
conditional limitation of carrying out particular refilling and interruption
steps “if” the prerequisite condition, i.e., “the height of the water from the
bottom of the wash tub is lower than the second pre-set level,” exists. In
other words, claim 1, as written, alternatively covers at least two methods,
one with the conditional steps and the prerequisite condition in the wherein
Appeal 2011-002606
Application 11/252,587

5
clause recited in claim 11, or another one without the conditional steps and
prerequisite condition in the wherein clause recited in claim 11. According
to pages 3 through 9 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants assert that the prior art
references in question do not teach or would not have suggested such
prerequisite condition and conditionals steps in the wherein clause recited in
claim 11, but do not dispute that the same prior art references would have
suggested all of the other requisite steps of the method recited in claims 1
through 3. In other words, the prior art, by virtue of Appellants’ own
admission, would have suggested at least one of the methods covered by the
claims on appeal.
It follows that the Examiner has not reversibly erred in determining
that the collective teachings of the prior art references relied upon would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at least one of the methods
recited in claims 1 through 3 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, it is:
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1
through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED; and,
FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any subsequent
action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-002606
Application 11/252,587

6

tc