Ex Parte Walkden

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2012

11337588 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte THOMAS GEORGE WALKDEN
________________

Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a dishwasher and a method for operating it.
Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588

2
1. A dishwasher, comprising:

an outer housing;

a cavity within said outer housing for receiving items to be cleaned;

water sprays for spraying said items in said cavity;

a pump for circulating collected water to said sprays; and

a high voltage brushed DC motor for driving said pump.

The References
Dantzebecher US 1,511,661 Oct. 14, 1924
Tweedy US 3,083,310 Mar. 26, 1963
Baines US 4,829,254 May 9, 1989
Morooka US 2002/0030415 A1 Mar. 14, 2002
Hegeman US 2003/0024864 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Kitoh US 6,710,484 B2 Mar. 23, 2004
Young US 2004/0079400 A1 Apr. 29, 2004
Kemmner (GB ‘918) GB 2 095 918 A Oct. 6, 1982
Fondin (FR ‘377) FR 2 568 377 A1 Jan. 31, 1986
(as translated)
Bauer (EP ‘927) EP 0 635 927 A2 Jan. 25, 1995
(as translated)
Frechilla Manso (EP ‘438) EP 0 732 438 A1 Sep. 18, 1996
(as translated)

Section 9.5 Electric Motors 1-8 (John Wiley & Sons 2001) (hereinafter
“Electric Motors”).

The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
5 and 18-20 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918, claim 2 over
Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and Hegeman, claim 3 over Dantzebecher
Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588

3
in view of GB ‘918 and Tweedy, claim 4 over Dantzebecher in view of
GB ‘918, Tweedy and Electric Motors, claims 6, 8 and 10 over
Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and EP ‘438, claims 6, 7 and 9 over
Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and FR ‘377, claim 11 over Dantzebecher
in view of GB ‘918 and Morooka, claims 15 and 16 over Dantzebecher in
view of GB ‘918 and Kitoh, claim 17 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918
and Baines, and claims 1 and 12-14 over Dantzebecher in view of EP ‘927
and Young.
OPINION
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 1-15 and 17-20 and reversed
as to claim 16.
With respect to the rejections involving GB ‘918, the Appellant states
that claims 2-8, 10-15 and 18 stand or fall with claim 1 (Br. 13; Reply Br. 6).
We therefore limit our discussion of those rejections to claims 1, 9, 16
and 17. The Appellant argues only claim 1 with respect to the rejection over
Dantzebecher in view of EP ‘927 and Young (Br. 17-19). Hence, we limit
our discussion of that rejection to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007).
Rejections involving GB ‘918
Claim 1
The Appellant argues that GB ‘918 does not disclose that the motor is
a high voltage motor or a DC motor (Br. 12; Reply Br. 5).
The Appellant states that “the motor voltage is 120 volts DC when
used in a U.S. domestic dishwasher” (Spec. ¶ 0022). Because
Dantzebecher’s dishwasher is a domestic dishwasher, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have used a “high voltage” motor, as that term is used by the
Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588

4
Appellant, to drive the dishwasher’s pump. GB ‘918 discloses that the
motor has brushes and a commutator (p. 1, ll. 50-52). As indicated by
Electric Motors (pp. 3-4), DC and universal motors have brushes and a
commutator. Hence, GB ‘918 would have fairly suggested a DC motor to
one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Appellant argues that GB ‘918 does not disclose that the motor
can be used in a dishwasher (Br. 12-13).
GB ‘918 discloses that the motor is suitable for driving a pump
(abstract). GB ‘918, therefore, would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, use of the motor to drive Dantzebecher’s dishwasher
pump.
Claim 9
The Appellant argues that FR ‘377 does not disclose a cylindrical or
ring-shaped magnet (Br. 16).
FR ‘377 discloses that “between the fins of the fan 22 are attached,
with intervals regular, of small magnets 24, preferably cylindrical” (sentence
bridging second and third pages).
Claim 17
The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided objective
factual evidence that Dantzebecher’s motor has a fan or needs a fan to
operate properly (Br. 22).
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In
making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. One of ordinary skill in the art, through no
Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588

5
more than ordinary creativity, would have provided Dantzebecher’s motor
with adequate cooling. Electric Motors’ illustration of a motor having
brushes and a commutator, for example, shows that the motor has a cooling
fan (p. 1).
The Appellant argues that because Dantzebecher’s motor (15) is
exposed (Fig. 1), an object could be inserted through ventilation slots and
thereby become damaged or damage the motor (Reply Br. 9).
The Appellant does not explain, and it is not apparent, why one of
ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would not
have provided a device such as a grid to prevent such damage.
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections of
claims 1-15 and 17-20.
Claim 16
Claim 16 requires that “the controller provides a soft start and/or
controlled acceleration.”
The Examiner argues that Kitoh’s controller (col. 6, ll. 23-24), with
proper programming, would be capable of functioning as required by the
Appellant’s claim 16 (Ans. 16).
As stated by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1403 n.29 (CCPA 1969):
In one sense, a general-purpose digital computer may be
regarded as but a storeroom of parts and/or electrical
components. But once a program has been introduced, the
general-purpose digital computer becomes a special-purpose
digital computer (i.e., a specific electrical circuit with or
without electro-mechanical components) which, along with the
process by which it operates, may be patented subject, of
Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588

6
course, to the requirements of novelty, utility, and non-
obviousness.

The Examiner has not established that Kitoh discloses or would have
rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a controller
programmed to provide a soft start and/or controlled acceleration. Hence,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Rejection over Dantzebecher in view of EP ‘927 and Young
The Appellant argues that EP ‘927 discloses that the permanent
magnet DC motor is useful in a food processor, but does not disclose that it
is useful in a dishwasher (Br. 18-19).
EP ‘927’s disclosure that the motor is useful to drive household
kitchen machines (first page, first paragraph) would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, use of the motor in kitchen machines other
than the exemplified food processor, such as a dishwasher.
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection over
Dantzebecher in view of EP ‘927 and Young.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 5 and 18-20 over
Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918, claim 2 over Dantzebecher in view of
GB ‘918 and Hegeman, claim 3 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and
Tweedy, claim 4 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918, Tweedy and
Electric Motors, claims 6, 8 and 10 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918
and EP ‘438, claims 6, 7 and 9 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and
FR ‘377, claim 11 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and Morooka,
claim 15 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and Kitoh, claim 17 over
Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918 and Baines, and claims 1 and 12-14 over
Appeal 2010-011757
Application 11/337,588

7
Dantzebecher in view of EP ‘927 and Young are affirmed. The rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 16 over Dantzebecher in view of GB ‘918
and Kitoh is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ssl