Ex Parte Beaudet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

12713657 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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.
12/713,657 02/26/2010 Douglas B. BEAUDET SUB-US20080847-US-NP 5146
173 7590 03/16/2017
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
LEE, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS B. BEAUDET, VINCENT A. IRELAND,
TRACI L. KACHOREK, and BARRY E. TULLER
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—16, and 22—25 (see Final Act. 1).
Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Feb. 26, 2010 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Dec. 3, 2014
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed May 4, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed Sept. 25, 2015 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Nov. 12, 2015
(“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Whirlpool Corporation.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
The invention relates to a method of operating a dishwashing machine
that includes soliciting user input regarding performance of the dishwashing
machine during a dishwashing cycle. Spec. 11. More specifically, at the
conclusion of a dishwashing cycle, a touchscreen display prompts the user to
indicate his satisfaction with a plurality of characteristics of dishwasher
performance, such as washing quality, cycle duration, and noise generated
by the dishwasher during the dishwashing cycle. Id. 149. Based on the user
input, a controller selects, adjusts, and stores one or more operational
parameters associated with the performance characteristic identified as
unsatisfactory by the user. See id. ]Hf 52—60, e.g. 1 53 (describing increasing
operating pressure of the wash pump and/or duration of the main washing
stage pursuant to the user’s indication that cleaning of dishes in the upper
dishwasher rack was unsatisfactory). The newly adjusted parameters may be
used in a subsequent cycle. Id. 1 61.
Of the appealed claims, claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative of the claimed invention:
1. A method of operating a dishwashing machine,
comprising:
determining user satisfaction with a dishwashing cycle,
including soliciting by requesting and prompting, through a
display, user input regarding each of a plurality of different
characteristics of dishwasher performance, receiving individual
user-input signals indicative of the user satisfaction for each of
the plurality of different characteristics for the dishwashing
cycle, and identifying individual, distinct unsatisfactory
characteristics of dishwasher performance based on the user-
input signals, wherein the plurality of characteristics of
dishwasher performance encompasses at least three different
characteristics of dishwasher performance and includes at least
washing quality and drying quality, and identifying the
unsatisfactory characteristic of dishwasher performance
2
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
includes identifying a stage of the dishwashing cycle exhibiting
unsatisfactory performance,
adjusting at least one operational parameter of the
dishwashing cycle based on the user satisfaction, and
incorporating the adjusted operational parameter into a
subsequent dishwashing cycle.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4—16, and 22—25:
Blair US 6,502,265 B2 Jan. 7, 2003
Cho US 2005/0000544 A1 Jan. 6, 2005
Ferguson US 2006/0237044 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
Heissler US 2007/0240738 A1 Oct. 18,2007
Choi US 2007/0272272 A1 Nov. 29, 2007
Berends US 2008/0314423 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Mariotti W0 2008/017910 A2 Feb. 14, 2008
Claims 1, 2, 4—16, and 22—25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the following combinations of references (see
Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 2—14):
1. claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 over Mariotti, Blair, Heissler, and Berends;
2. claims 4 and 7 over Mariotti, Blair, Heissler, Berends, and
Ferguson;
3. claims 8—10 over Mariotti, Blair, Heissler, Berends, and Choi;
4. claims 11—16 over Mariotti, Blair, Berends, and Cho;
5. claims 22 and 23 over Mariotti, Blair, Berends, Cho, Heissler,
and Ferguson; and
6. claims 24 and 25 over Mariotti, Blair, Berends, Cho, and Choi.
3
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
The respective positions of the Examiner and Appellants with respect
to claims 1 and 11 raise the following issue for our consideration: Have
Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Mariotti,
alone or in combination with the secondary references, discloses or suggests
a method of operating a dishwashing machine that includes a step of
determining user satisfaction with a dishwashing cycle by soliciting user
input regarding each of three or more different characteristics of dishwasher
performance, including at least washing quality and drying quality, as
required by appealed claims 1 and 11?
We answer this question in the affirmative for the reasons discussed
below.
The Examiner finds Mariotti discloses a method of operating a
dishwashing machine wherein
the user is able to immediately check the result of the washing
carried out and modify the parameters relative to that
predetermined washing program, better adapting them to
specific requirements (page 4, lines 30-33). Because Mariotti
discloses that multiple parameters can be modified in a washing
program, it is inherent or reasonably expected that since
multiple parameters are modified, that individual, distinct
unsatisfactory characteristics of dishwasher performance are
identified in order to change multiple parameters relative to the
predetermined washing program.
Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner acknowledges “Mariotti does not explicitly
disclose soliciting user input,” but finds “[i]t is reasonably expected that. . .
determining the user satisfaction with a dishwashing cycle would include
prompting user input since user satisfaction cannot be determined without
user input.” Id. at 3. The Examiner further finds Blair evidences the known
use at the time of the invention of display screens to prompt user input,
4
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
concluding “[i]t would have been obvious to use the display screen as
disclosed by Blair to prompt a user to input certain washing information to
automatically control the washing appliance to perform the desired
operation.” Id. at 3^4. The Examiner finds Mariotti, alone or in
combination with Blair, does not describe soliciting user input regarding
drying quality, but determines
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the dishwashing method of Mariotti/Blair to Heissler
such that the drying quality is controlled by adjusting operating
parameters as discussed by Heissler in order to optimize the
operation of the dishwasher to the individual user.
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds “Berends discloses a similar dishwasher
control system wherein the thoroughness of the cleaning is adjusted by
pressing a plus or minus button (similar to the selector of Mariotti)
repeatedly.” Id. at 5. The Examiner contends
[t]o the extent. . . that Mariotti merely discloses a single user
input signal and not multiple user input signals, . . . [i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Mariotti, Blair and Heissler [to] more finely control the
adjustment of the parameters of the dishwashing cycle.
Id. The Examiner relies on substantially the same findings with respect to
Mariotti, Blair, and Berends in rejecting claim 11. See id. at 9-11. The
Examiner does not rely on Heissler in rejecting claim 11. See id. The
Examiner relies on Cho for a teaching of a soil sensor, noting Mariotti
discloses the use of a temperature sensor, but not a plurality of sensors as
recited in appealed claim 11. Final Act. 10; see Appeal Br. (Claims App’x,
claim 11) (requiring a step of “communicating with a plurality of sensors”).
Appellants argue the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner are
insufficient to support a finding that the applied prior art discloses or
5
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
suggests soliciting and receiving user input regarding a plurality of different
characteristics of dishwasher performance as required by claims 1 and 11.
Appeal Br. 8.3 More specifically, Appellants argue Mariotti’s method
allows a user to indicate his satisfaction with a single characteristic, i.e.,
washing performance, and, in response, regulating means 3 of Mariotti’s
dishwashing machine may adjust various parameters related to washing
performance. Id. at 8—9. Appellants contend, however, that there is no
disclosure or suggestion in Mariotti of soliciting or receiving user input as to
which parameters should be adjusted. Id. at 9. Appellants argue further that
none of the secondary references would have provided a reason to the
ordinary artisan to modify Mariotti to solicit user input regarding satisfaction
with characteristics of dishwasher performance, noting Blair prompts a user
to select a desired wash cycle and/or enter information about characteristics
of laundry prior to a clothes washing cycle and Heissler merely describes the
use of a humidity sensor to detect completion of a drying cycle. See id. at 9—
10.
In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner
clarifies that “the secondary prior art references are relied upon for
disclosing that it was known in the art to adjust the various characteristics to
improve dishwasher performance, and not relied upon for the method on
which the various characteristics are adjusted.” Ans. 18. The Examiner
contends Appellants’ arguments are based on an “extremely narrow
understanding of [Mariotti’s] disclosure” and fail to take into account that
3 For convenience, we refer to the pages of the Appeal Brief wherein the
rejection of claim 1 is argued. Similar arguments in support of patentability
of claim 11 are made on pages 14—16 of the Appeal Brief.
6
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
the “person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.” Id. at 15—16 (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). The Examiner maintains that given Mariotti’s
disclosure of
multiple parameters to adjust washing performance wherein
each parameter, individually, affects the washing performance,
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would understand Mariotti as disclosing receiving individual
user-input signals indicative of the user satisfaction for each of
the plurality of different characteristics for the dishwashing
cycle.
Id.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified
evidentiary support for the finding that the ordinary artisan would have
understood Mariotti as suggesting a method of operating a dishwashing
machine that includes receiving signals indicative of user satisfaction for
each of the parameters adjusted by Mariotti’s regulating means. See Reply
Br. 2. Appellants explain why, in Mariotti’s method, the most useful
feedback provided by a user is whether washing performance is satisfactory,
i.e., that at the time of the invention, the knowledge and skill level of the
ordinary artisan would have been insufficient for the ordinary artisan to
provide meaningful feedback about any of the specific parameters adjusted
by Mariotti’s regulating means. See id. at 3^4.
“In recognizing the role of common knowledge and common sense,
[the Federal Circuit has] emphasized the importance of a factual foundation
to support a party’s claim about what one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
would have known.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2013). “[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating
7
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, [the factfinder] must articulate
its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.” Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v.
InfoUSA Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also In re Van Os
844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[OJbviousness findings ‘grounded in
“common sense” must contain explicit and clear reasoning providing some
rational underpinning why common sense compels a finding of
obviousness.’” (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2013))); cf In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc.,
2017 WL 744548 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017) (“Although the PTAB
made a factual finding, this finding did not have an adequate basis in the
record, and the PTAB did not adequately explain its reasoning.”).
Appellants have argued persuasively in their Appeal and Reply Briefs
that the Examiner failed to meet the Office’s burden to explain with
sufficient clarity why the ordinary artisan would have understood that
Mariotti discloses or suggests a method that includes a step of soliciting user
input as to any characteristic or parameter other than dishwasher
performance. Nor has the Examiner articulated clearly why the ordinary
artisan would have had a reason to modify Mariotti’s method to solicit user
input regarding the one or more parameters explicitly described by Mariotti
as automatically adjusted by the regulating means in response to a single
user input of unsatisfactory dishwasher performance. This deficiency in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 11 is not cured by any of the
additional secondary references cited in support of the rejections of the
dependent claims. See generally Final 6—8, 12—14.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—16, and 22—25.
8
Appeal 2016-001827
Application 12/713,657
REVERSED
9