Ex Parte Willis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14194005 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/194,005 02/28/2014
122869 7590 03/28/2019
Pearne and Gordon, LLP
1801 East 9th Street, Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy E. Willis
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
WGP-51249 8189
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY E. WILLIS 1
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Electrolux Home Products Corporation, Inc. is identified as the real party
in interest (Appeal Br. 2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46.
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A refrigeration appliance comprising:
at least one door;
at least one surface, the at least one surface being a
surface of the at least one door or a mullion of the refrigeration
appliance;
a user interface located on the at least one surface and the
user interface comprising at least two sensors, each sensor
adapted for communicating a signal; and
a controller,
wherein the controller is configured to determine the
state of the at least one door based at least in part on the signals
of the at least two sensors of the user interface and detect a user
input from the user interface based at least in part on the signals
of the at least two sensors of the user interface.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REJECTI0NS 2
Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Clare (AU 2009200531 Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009) and
Rodriguez (US 2007/0159454 Al, pub. July 12, 2007).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Clare, Rodriguez, and Schenk (US 2011/0209493 Al, pub. Sept. 1,
2011).
2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
for lack of a written description and a rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 14, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Adv. Action (mailed, Sept.
14, 2017).
2
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-18
As Unpatentable Over Clare and Rodriguez
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-18
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-18 as a group. Appeal Br.
6-10. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 5-9, and 11-18 stand
or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Clare teaches a refrigerator appliance with door 412, a
user interface (display and control unit 410) located on door 412 in Figure 4
with a sensor (proximity sensor 420), and a controller (microprocessor ,r 56).
Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that the controller (1) determines the
state of door 412 based on signal information from proximity sensor 420 in
response to a user approaching door 412, and (2) detects user input from the
user interface (i.e., via information received from proximity sensor 420). Id.
at 5. The Examiner relies on Rodriguez to teach a refrigerator including a
control panel and user interface 16 with plural sensors 122. Id.
The single issue in dispute is whether Clare discloses the limitation:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the state of the
at least one door based at least in part on the signals of the at
least two sensors of the user interface and detect a user input
from the user interface based at least in part on the signals of
the at least two sensors of the user interface.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (Claim 1 ).
Appellant argues "the proximity sensor never senses/ detects the state
of the door, as would be required to teach the claimed feature." Appeal Br.
8. Appellant argues "the state of the door is determined by a separate sensor
inside the cavity of the refrigerator" "[b Jut this is not what is claimed." Id.
3
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
The dispute involves an issue of claim interpretation. Appellant
argues that "the claims recite that the sensors of the user interface 1) operate
the user interface; and 2) determine the state of the door." Id. Appellant
does not dispute that actuating a refrigerator door based on signals received
by the controller from the proximity sensor would require the controller to
determine the state of the door being open or closed. Id. at 9 ("Appellants
do not disagree with this."). However, Appellant argues that 'just because
one set of sensors is used to determine whether to actuate a door does not
mean those same sensors are used to determine how to actuate the door (by
knowing its state)." Id. Appellant argues that Clare describes that a separate
proximity sensor, which is separate from the sensors of the user interface, is
used to determine the state of the door ( as opposed to whether the door
should be actuated). Id. Appellant argues that "the present claims recite that
'the state of the at least one door' and 'user input from the user interface' are
determined based on the same 'signals (or, 'activation or inactivation') of
the at least two sensors of the user interface (or, 'sensor system')." Id.
These arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. 3
For example, claim 1 recites "each sensor adapted for communicating a
signal." Claim 1 does not require a sensor to sense or communicate a state
of the door. Instead, the controller is "configured to determine the state of
the at least one door based at least in part on the signals of the at least two
sensors and detect a user input from the user interface based at least in part
on the signals of the at least two sensors of the user interface."
3 Appellant's mere recitation of words/limitations from independent claims 8
and 14 (see Appeal Br. 7) does not constitute argument for the separate
patentability of those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1356---57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
4
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
Clare discloses a controller that is configured to determine the state of
a refrigerator door when it receives signals from proximity sensor 420 as
Appellant acknowledges. Appeal Br. 8-9. Therefore, Clare's controller is
configured to determine the state of the refrigerator door ( open or closed)
"based at least in part" on signals received from proximity sensor 420. That
Clare's controller may determine the state of the refrigerator door based in
part on signals from another sensor is not precluded by claim 1. Clare thus
teaches that the controller determines the state of the refrigerator door based
at least in part on signals it receives from proximity sensor 420.
Claim 1 does not require the controller to determine the state of a door
based on signals of a sensor that also detects and communicates the state of
the door (i.e., whether the door is open or closed). Nor are we required to
interpret claim 1 as limited to such an embodiment from the Specification
when the language of claim 1 is broader than that embodiment.
Appellant argues that "the use of the proximity sensor may ultimately
result in detecting a door position" but this use of the proximity sensor by a
controller does not mean that "the proximity sensor itself must be considered
a door position sensor." Reply Br. 2-3. However, claim 1 does not require
the claimed at least two sensors (or Clare's proximity sensor) to act as a door
position sensor that senses a state of the door as open or closed. Instead, the
claimed sensors are "adapted for communicating a signal" that is used, "at
least in part," by the controller "to determine the state of at least one door."
Clare teaches this feature as proximity sensor 420 communicates a signal
when a user approaches the refrigerator. The controller uses that signal to
determine the state of the door in conjunction with signals obtained from
another sensor or a door activation mechanism. See Clare ,r,r 35, 60.
5
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 5-9, and 11-
18, which fall therewith.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites that the user interface is
located on a side portion of at least one door such that all or nearly all of the
at least two sensors are activated or inactivated nearly simultaneously when
either the at least one door or the second door is in a closed or opened state.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Clare teaches this
feature. Final Act. 6. However, Appellant points out that claim 4 depends
from claim 3 (Appeal Br. 9), and elsewhere the Examiner concedes that
Clare and Rodriguez do not teach the limitations of claim 3 (Final Act. 18).
In any event, as discussed below, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 3. Hence, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 3 and 10
As Unpatentable Over Clare, Rodriguez, and Schenk
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites the refrigerator of claim 1,
further comprising a second door, wherein the at least one
surface of the at least one door and a surface of the second door
each comprise a substantially-planar side portion that oppose
each other when the at least one door and the second door are in
a closed state.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Clare does not teach this feature, but Schenk
does disclose a second door 126 having at least one surface 128 that opposes
a surface of a first door in Figure 3. Final Act. 18.
6
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
Appellant does not dispute this finding of the Examiner that Schenk
discloses the claimed side-by-side French door with a user interface located
on the side portion of one of the doors in opposition to the side portion of the
other door when both doors are closed. Appeal Br. 10. However, Appellant
argues that modifying Clare to place the user interface and its sensors such
as proximity sensor 420 on a side portion of the door as illustrated in Schenk
and as recited in claim 3 would render Clare unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose and change its principle of operation because the proximity sensor
no longer would face outwardly to determine the presence or motion of a
person in the vicinity of the appliance as Clare is intended to operate. Id.
In response, the Examiner points out that Clare expressly states that
proximity sensor 420 of the user interface is not limited to one position of
the door and can be located anywhere on door 412 that is suitable for the
functioning of the proximity sensor. Ans. 12-13 (citing Clare ,r 50).
We agree with the Examiner that Clare teaches that proximity sensor
420 can be located anywhere on door 412 "that is suitable for the function of
the proximity sensor 420." Clare ,r 50. However, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not explained why a side surface of a door in a side-
by-side arrangement would be a "suitable" location for proximity sensor 420
to function. Therefore, we are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would
have been motivated to place proximity sensor 420 on a side portion of door
412 facing a side portion of an adjacent side-by-side door that would limit
proximity sensor 420's ability to detect motion in a room near the appliance.
Clare teaches that the sensing range of proximity sensor 420 is adjustable
and ranges from the dimensions of a domestic kitchen to an aisle of a retail
store for such appliance. Id. ,r 49.
7
Appeal2018-006095
Application 14/194,005
Clare positions proximity sensor 420 on a front surface of door 412
without anything covering or impeding proximity sensor 420. Clare, Fig. 4.
Clare places radiation sensor 214 on a side surface of a door that faces a side
of an adjacent door to detect the adjacent door when both doors are closed.
Id. ,r 36. However, there is no teaching that radiation sensor 214 detects any
motion in the surrounding room or that a proximity sensor in such a location
could do so. Absent evidence that a side surface of a door in a side-by-side
refrigerator is a suitable place for a proximity sensor, the Examiner's reason
for placing proximity sensor 420 on a side surface of the door lacks a
rational underpinning. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 10
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 10 based on its dependence
from claim 8. Appeal Br. 11. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 8,
this argument is not persuasive and we also sustain the rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-18, and we reverse the
rejections of claims 3 and 4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8