Whirlpool Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2021

2021001481 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/961,956 12/08/2015 Eric J. Dherde SUB-06590-US-NP 2169
130333 7590 11/18/2021
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
STCLAIR, ANDREW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2021 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):
PatentDocketing@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC J. DHERDE and LORRAINE J. WESTLAKE
____________

Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,9561
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 17–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Whirlpool
Corporation. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “insulating structures for appliances,
specifically, an insulating structure for an appliance having a compacted
insulating material within the insulating structure.” (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Claim 17 is the sole independent claim on appeal. It recites:
17. A method for forming an insulative member, the method
comprising steps of:
forming a wrapper for an insulating structure, the wrapper
defining an insulating cavity;
disposing a predetermined amount of an insulating media
into the insulating cavity, the insulating media having a pre-
compaction density;
modifying the insulating media to define a desired target
insulation density by applying a positive compression to and
simultaneously generating a negative compression within the
insulating media during a simultaneous compression phase,
wherein the negative compression is generated by an at least
partial vacuum maintained in the insulating cavity;
operating at least the simultaneous compression phase
until the insulating cavity reaches a selected insulating cavity
pressure and the insulating media reaches the desired target
insulation density, the desired target insulation density being
greater than the pre-compaction density;
monitoring an insulating cavity pressure to reach the
selected insulating cavity pressure and a selected chamber
volume during operation of the simultaneous compression phase,
wherein the simultaneous compression phase operates to at least
partially prevent inward deflection of the wrapper and deviation
from the selected chamber volume after the selected insulating
cavity pressure is reached, wherein the selected insulating cavity
pressure is defined by a partial vacuum; and
sealing the insulating cavity to maintain the selected
insulating cavity pressure of the insulating cavity and the desired
target insulation density of the insulating media within the
insulating cavity to form the insulating structure.
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable in
view of Dellby (US 5,509,248, iss. Apr. 23, 1996), Bridges (US 5,500,305,
iss. Mar. 19, 1996), and Campanaro (US 3,258,883, iss. July 5, 1966).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable in view of
Dellby, Bridges, Campanaro, and Klatt (US 5,866,247, iss. Feb. 2, 1999).

ANALYSIS
Claims 17, 19, and 20
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds Dellby teaches “modifying the insulating media (46) by applying a
positive compression to (packed by piston 38, column 2, line 49-50) and
generating a negative compression (suction from pump 28, column 2,
line 36-37) within the insulating media (46) during a simultaneous
compression phase.” (Final Action 4.) The Examiner also finds that Dellby
“does not disclose: a target insulation density . . . [and] the selected cavity
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

4
pressure during the simultaneous compression phase being a partial
vacuum.” (Id. at 5.) The Examiner finds that Bridges discloses “compacting
an insulating material until achieving and maintaining a desired density.”
(Id. (citing Bridges, col. 10, ll. 6–36).) The Examiner also finds:
Campanaro teaches an insulation compacting method that
includes forming a vacuum in a chamber (34, 35; see figure 2) to
compact insulation (37) and increase rigidity (column 3, lines 49-
74), and teaches that supporting the chambers (34, 35) from the
inside (via pressure in chamber 36) allows the use [of] a partial
vacuum without deforming the walls to a concave state
(column 3, lines 63-64).
(Id. at 5–6.)
Appellant argues that none of the references “include[s] the
simultaneous application of positive compression and negative compression
to achieve a desired target insulation density,” and that Dellby “does not
disclose a simultaneous compression phase, in any respect, regarding the
formation of the insulating member of Dellby.” (Appeal Br. 11.) Rather,
Appellant argues, the cited “references disclose either positive compression
or negative compression, or a separate and sequential application of positive
and negative compression to achieve the insulating member.” (Id.) We do
not find this argument persuasive.
Dellby discloses “a method for filling and packing insulating powder
in hollow walls of a boxlike body and then evacuating gaseous medium from
the walls, so that the powder forms a vacuum insulation in the walls.”
(Dellby, col. 1, ll. 7–10.) Figure 1 of Dellby is reproduced below.

Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

5

Figure 1 “shows a sectional view of a container with an insulating powder
connected to a cabinet body arranged in a fixture.” (Dellby, col. 1, ll. 58–
60.)
Dellby discloses a process in which a boxlike body, such as one
intended to form the cabinet of a refrigerator, is brought into fixture 34,
pumps 28 and 50 are started, valves 32 and 44 are opened, and “valve 52 is
opened so much, that one gets an overpressure above the pressure of ambient
atmosphere of about 0.5 bar in the container 40.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 33–40.)
“The air from the pump 50 flows towards the vacuum pump 28 and brings
with it the powder, which is stopped by the filter element 24 and first fills
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

6
the space 26 in the side walls . . . and then the space 36 in the rear wall 12.”
(Id. at col. 2, ll. 9–12, 40–44.) Dellby further discloses packing the powder
in the space 36 by pressing piston 38 against the powder. (Id. at col. 2,
ll. 49–51.) In other words, Dellby discloses simultaneously applying a
positive compression and a suction. However, Dellby cautions that vacuum
pump 28 must “be controlled so during the filling and packing . . . it cannot
cause any underpressure in the walls below the pressure of ambient
atmosphere, which can cause an inward bend of the walls.” (Id. at col. 2,
ll. 57–61.)
Bridges teaches “a vacuum insulated panel and method of making the
same.” (Bridges, col. 9, ll. 10–11.) In particular, Bridges teaches forming a
compressed block of powder by placing “the proper amount of particulate
silica gel, charcoal (or carbon black)” within a form over a vacuum and
turning on the vacuum. (Id. at col. 10, ll. 25–28.)
While the application of a vacuum helps to compress the
particulate charcoal or carbon material, a piston type compressor
arrangement 68 is provided to apply downward pressure P, on
top of the particulate material 66, to tamp it down firmly until it
forms a solid cake of the desired density.
(Id. at col. 10, ll. 28–33.) The formed cake of desired density is placed in
the base of the panel prior to positioning of the top panel member and
evacuation of the panel. (Id. at col. 10, ll. 41–43, Fig. 9.) In short, Bridges
teaches “simultaneously applying a positive compression (via piston 68) and
a partial vacuum (at port 62) to compact insulation to a desired density
(figure 8; column 10, lines 28-33). Bridges specifically mentions
compacting the insulation to a desired density (column 10, line 33).”
(Answer 4.)
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

7
In view of the above, we do not agree with Appellant that “[n]one of
the references . . . include[s] the simultaneous application of positive
compression and negative compression to achieve a desired target insulation
density.” (Appeal Br. 11.) Nor do we find persuasive Appellant’s argument
that Bridges’ “use of suction is not for compressing the block 22.” (Appeal
Br. 12 (citing Bridges, col. 12, ll. 27–44).) The portions of Bridges cited by
Appellant refer to use of the formed cake of the desired density in the panel,
i.e., portions of Bridges not related to the formation of the cake of the
desired density and not relied on by the Examiner. (See Bridges, col. 10,
ll. 17–33; see also Answer 4–5.)
Moreover, with regard to Campanaro, the Examiner finds that it also
teaches an insulation compacting method. (Final Action 5–6.) Specifically,
Campanaro discloses “rigidized structures that may be alternatively folded
for compact storage or deployed to support substantial loads and provide
insulation from heat, impact, and sound.” (Campanaro, col. 1, ll. 9–13.)
Figures 2 and 2a of Campanaro are reproduced below.

Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

8
Figure 2 “shows a triple walled rigidifiable support member in a relaxed
condition” and Figure 2a “depicts the member of FIG. 2 in a rigid
condition.” (Id. at col. 1, l. 71–col. 2, l. 2.)
Campanaro discloses a process in which nozzles 41 and 42 are
connected to vacuum pump 38, and nozzle 43 is connected to pressure
pump 51. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 52–57.) Pump 38 evacuates the air in the
spaces 34 and 35, and pump 51 pumps air into chamber 36 so that
chamber 36 is now at a pressure greater than one atmosphere.
The outer environment is at one atmosphere of pressure. The
spaces 34 and 35 are at a pressure substantially less than that of
either the chamber 36 or the outer environment. Such a pressure
gradient causes the tubes 31, 32, and 33 to converge upon the
particles 37 forcing them to relocate and occupy the entire, now
reduced in volume, spaces 34 and 35. Compacting will also
result if the air in the spaces 34 and 35 is not evacuated but the
chamber 36 is pressurized to give a substantial pressure
differential between the chamber 36 and the spaces 34 and 35
thus providing the necessary compacting force.
(Id. at col. 3, ll. 60–74.) In other words, Campanaro teaches applying a
positive compression to spaces 34 and 35 through the pressure in
chamber 36, and simultaneously generating at least a partial vacuum in
spaces 34 and 35. (Id.)
Appellant does not persuasively argue that the Examiner erred in
finding that in view of Dellby, Bridges, and Campanaro, it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Dellby “to use a target insulation
density and partial vacuum during the simultaneous compression phase of
Dellby to increase the rigidity of the insulation and thereby prevent inward
deflection of the walls.” (Final Action 6.)
Even if we agreed with Appellant that “each of the references cited by
the Examiner fails to disclose the use of a simultaneous compression phase
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

9
that includes applying a positive compression to and simultaneously
generating a negative compression within the insulating media during the
simultaneous compression phase” (Appeal Br. 14), we would not be
persuaded of error. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
A reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that
the combination of references relied on by the Examiner fails to teach the
limitations of claim 17.
With regard to claim 19, Appellant relies on the arguments for
claim 17. (See Appeal Br. 14.) For the reasons discussed, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19.
With regard to claim 20, Appellant relies on the arguments for
claim 17 and adds that “Klatt et al. fails to remedy the shortcomings of
Dellby et al., Bridges et al., and Companaro [sic] et al.” (Appeal Br. 15.)
For the reasons discussed with regard to claim 17, we do not find this
argument persuasive.

Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the positive compression
is applied by an operable compactor that presses the insulating
media, and wherein the negative compression is simultaneously
generated by a gas pump that generates the at least partial
vacuum within the insulating cavity, wherein the at least partial
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

10
vacuum is maintained during operation of the operable
compactor.
Appellant’s argument simply recites claim 18 and asserts that “Dellby
et al., Bridges et al. and Companaro [sic] et al. include no such disclosure.”
(Appeal Br 14.) We do not find this argument persuasive.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Dellby discloses the positive
compression is applied by an operable compactor (38) that presses the
insulation media (36)(column 2, line 49-50), and wherein the negative
compression is simultaneously generated by a gas pump (28).” (Final
Action 6–7.) We also agree with the Examiner that “[m]odifying Dellby
such that the vacuum pump (28) achieves a partial vacuum, as discussed
with respect to claim 17, would result in the subject matter of claim 18.”
(Answer 5.)
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed.
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
17–19 103 Dellby, Bridges,
Campanaro
17–19
20 103 Dellby, Bridges,
Campanaro, Klatt
20
Overall
Outcome
17–20
Appeal 2021-001481
Application 14/961,956

11

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED