Ex Parte Volkers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2013

11546668 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HENRIK VOLKERS
____________

Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Henrik Volkers (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 15 representatively recites:
15. A domestic dryer comprising:
a housing;
a drum mounted for rotary movement with
respect to the housing and receiving items to be
dried;
a motor rotating the drum;
a device for detecting rotary movement of
the drum including a capacitive sensor having a
first conducting armature configured as a fully
rotating annular armature formed on an outer
circumference of one of the drum and a drum neck,
and a second conducting armature fixedly mounted
with respect to the housing and arranged opposite
the first conducting armature; and
a device for measuring a capacitance
variation of the capacitive sensor.
REJECTIONS
Appellant requests our review of the following rejections:
Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Didier (US 4,607,408, issued Aug. 26, 1986) in view of
Griffen (US 5,293,125, issued Mar. 8, 1994) and Kinoshita (US 5,657,006,
issued Aug. 12, 1997);
Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Skrippek (US 6,374,444 B2, issued Apr. 23, 2002) in
view of Griffen and Kinoshita;
Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”, see Spec. 1,
ll. 6-26) in view of Griffen and Kinoshita;
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

3
Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Didier in view of Kinoshita and Chen (US 7,023,684
B1, issued Apr. 4, 2006);
Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Skrippek in view of Kinoshita and Chen; and
Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the AAPA in view of Kinoshita and Chen.
ANALYSIS
I. Rejection of Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 as Unpatentable Over
Didier in View of Griffen and Kinoshita
The Examiner cites Didier as disclosing all limitations of independent
claims 15 and 25, including a device for detecting rotary movement of the
drum, but Didier does not disclose “a capacitive sensor having a first
conducting armature configured as a fully rotating annular armature formed
on an outer circumference of one of the drum and a drum neck.” See Ans. 3-
4. The Examiner cites Griffen and Kinoshita as remedying the deficiency of
Didier’s disclosure as to claims 15 and 25 and concludes that claims 15 and
25 are obvious. See Ans. 4.
However, we agree with Appellant’s contention that one of ordinary
skill in the art combining the respective disclosures of Didier, Griffen and
Kinoshita would mount the rotating sensor component(s) on the motor
output shaft of the Didier clothes dryer, not on or otherwise incorporated
with the dryer drum or drum neck of the Didier clothes dryer. See App. Br.
8-12; Reply Br. 14-15 and 18-21.
According to the Examiner’s analysis, the dryer drum of Didier and
the magnetic drum 24 of the Griffen tachometer are both drums, so applying
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

4
the properties of the Griffen tachometer drum to the Didier dryer drum is the
mere substitution of one known element for another. See Ans. 16-17. We
disagree. We find the dryer drum and drum neck of Didier and the magnetic
drum 24 of Griffen differ in both function and structure, for the following
reasons.
As to function, the dryer drum and drum neck of Didier operate to
hold and spin items to perform a drying action on the items. The Griffen
drum 24, by contrast, operates to detect rotary movement of a motor output
shaft. In other words, the Didier dryer drum and drum neck function to be
driven by the motor output shaft and thereby perform a drying action, while
the Griffen drum functions to monitor the rotation of the motor output shaft.
See App. Br. 12-13.
As to structure, the dryer drum and drum neck of Didier are
configured to receive one or more items to be dried. The Griffen drum 24,
by contrast, is a solid ring member attached to the motor output shaft 14 and
having magnetic patterns 58, 60 to communicate a rotational position of the
shaft 14. See Griffen, col. 8, l. 56 to col. 9, l. 8; Figs. 1-5. The solid ring
drum 24 of Griffen is not configured to receive one or more items to be
dried.
Because of these substantial differences in function and structure, the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Didier in view of Griffen is not the
mere substitution of one known element for another. Rather, what the
Examiner proposes is modifying the Didier dryer drum by adding the
rotational sensor components of Griffen to the Didier dryer drum or drum
neck. The Examiner has pointed to no evidence of record — whether in
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

5
Didier, Griffen, or otherwise — to establish a rational underpinning for why
one of ordinary skill in the art would do that.
Kinoshita does not cure the deficiencies of Didier and Griffen in
regard to locating a portion of the rotary movement detection device on one
of the dryer drum and the dryer drum neck. The rotating components of the
rotary movement detection device of Kinoshita, like those of Griffen, are
mounted to a rotating shaft such as a motor output shaft. See, e.g.,
Kinoshita, col. 1, lines 23-49; and Griffen, col. 8, ll. 11-26. Therefore, the
respective disclosures of both Griffen and Kinoshita would lead one of
ordinary skill to mount the rotational sensor component(s) on the motor
output shaft of the Didier clothes dryer, not on the dryer drum or dryer drum
neck of the Didier dryer.
The Examiner tries to explain away this distinction between the
claimed invention and the cited prior art by arguing the location of the
sensor is an obvious matter of design choice because “applicant has not
disclosed that the claimed location of the capacitive sensor on the outer
circumferential surface of the drum or of the drum neck solves any stated
problem in a new or unexpected way.” See Ans. 4-5. The Examiner further
states: “It is noted that nowhere in the current specification does the
applicant explain the criticality of the arrangement of a first conducting
armature configured as a fully rotating annular armature formed on an outer
circumference of one of the drum and a drum neck.” Id. at 15.
We disagree with those findings made by the Examiner, for the
reasons provided by Appellant. See App. Br. 4-5 and 9-12; Reply Br. 10-14.
That is, the Specification acknowledges it was previously known to “record
a rotary movement of the motor drive shaft” by using “centrifugal switches.”
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

6
See Spec. 1, ll. 18-21. The Specification then describes several advantages
of locating a rotational sensor on the dryer drum or the dryer drum neck,
rather than on the motor output shaft. See Spec. 2, l. 16 to 3, l. 3. Therefore,
we find the present application discloses that locating the rotating sensor
component(s) on the dryer drum or the dryer drum neck is critically different
from locating the rotating sensor component(s) on the motor output shaft.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 as unpatentable over Didier in view of Griffen and
Kinoshita.
II. Rejection of Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 as Unpatentable Over
Either Skrippek or AAPA, in View of Griffen and Kinoshita
These two rejections are very similar to the Didier-Griffen-Kinoshita
rejection already discussed above, except that the Examiner cites Skrippek
or AAPA in place of Didier as disclosing all limitations in independent
claims 15 and 25 except for those directed to specific properties of a device
for detecting rotary movement of the drum (i.e. a capacitive sensor). See
Ans. 5-8. The analysis of Griffen and Kinoshita already provided above in
relation to the Didier-Griffen-Kinoshita rejection applies equally well to the
Skrippek-Griffen-Kinoshita rejection and the AAPA-Griffen-Kinoshita
rejection under discussion here. Using Skrippek or AAPA as the primary
reference in place of Didier, as set forth by the Examiner, does not
materially change our analysis or the result. Therefore, for the same reasons,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 as
unpatentable over Skrippek in view of Griffen and Kinoshita, or over AAPA
in view of Griffen and Kinoshita, as presently set forth by the Examiner.
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

7
III. Rejection of Claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 as Unpatentable Over
One of Didier, Skrippek, or AAPA, in View of Kinoshita and Chen
These three rejections are very similar to the rejections already
discussed above. That is, the Examiner cites Didier, Skrippek or AAPA as
disclosing all limitations in independent claims 15 and 25 except for those
directed to specific properties of a device for detecting rotary movement of
the drum (i.e. a capacitive sensor). See Ans. 8-13. The Examiner cites
Kinoshita and Chen as disclosing the rotary movement detection device
properties not specified in Didier, Skrippek or AAPA. See id.
Based on the analysis already provided above, the Examiner erred in
finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would be led by Kinoshita to
modify the Didier / Skrippek / AAPA dryer drum by adding the rotational
sensor components of Kinoshita to the dryer drum or drum neck. The
rotating components of the rotary movement detection device of Kinoshita
are mounted to a rotating shaft such as a motor output shaft, not a dryer
drum or drum neck. See Kinoshita, col. 1, lines 23-49. The Examiner has
pointed to no evidence of record — whether in Didier, Skrippek, the AAPA,
Kinoshita, or otherwise — to establish a rational underpinning for why one
of ordinary skill in the art would make the proposed modification.
Particularly concerning the disclosure of Kinoshita, for the reasons provided
above we determine there is nothing in that disclosure which would lead one
of ordinary skill to mount the rotational sensor component(s) on the dryer
drum or dryer drum neck rather than the motor output shaft of a clothes
dryer.
Chen is cited by the Examiner as disclosing a cylindrically-shaped
angular position sensor which measures the position of a rotating shaft 90.
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

8
See Ans. 8-9; and Chen, col. 5, ll. 56-61 and figs. 10-11. Chen does not,
however, cure the deficiencies of any of Didier, Skrippek, or AAPA and
Kinoshita in regard to locating a portion of the rotary movement detection
device on one of the dryer drum and the dryer drum neck. The rotating
components of the rotary movement detection device of Chen, like those of
Kinoshita, are mounted to a rotating shaft such as a motor output shaft. See
Chen, col. 5, ll. 56-61. Therefore, the respective disclosures of both
Kinoshita and Chen would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the
rotational sensor component(s) on the motor output shaft of a clothes dryer,
not on the dryer drum or dryer drum neck of a clothes dryer as called for by
each independent claims 15 and 25.
Once more, the Examiner attempts to explain away this distinction
between the claimed invention and the cited prior art by alleging that
“applicant has not disclosed that the claimed location of the capacitive
sensor on the outer circumferential surface of the drum or of the drum neck
solves any stated problem in a new or unexpected way or is for any
particular purpose which is unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
See Ans. 9; see also id. at 31-34. We disagree with those findings made by
the Examiner, and instead find the present application discloses locating the
rotating sensor component(s) on the dryer drum or the dryer drum neck is
critically different from locating the rotating sensor component(s) on the
motor output shaft, for the reasons provided above.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 15-18, 20-23, and 25-30 as unpatentable over Didier in view of
Kinoshita and Chen; over Skrippek in view of Kinoshita and Chen; or over
AAPA in view of Kinoshita and Chen.
Appeal 2011-009634
Application 11/546,668

9
DECISION
We REVERSE each and every rejection of claims 15-18, 20-23, and
25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the prior art.

REVERSED

Klh