Ex Parte Cadeau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14241140 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/241,140 02/26/2014
46726 7590 09/24/2018
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christophe Cadeau
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.
2011P02562WOUS 1052
EXAMINER
SANCHEZ-MEDINA, REINALDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHE CAD EAU and JORN NAUMANN
Appeal 2018-001646
Application 14/241, 140 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 15, 16, 18-32, and 34--49. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgerate GmbH." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001646
Application 14/241, 140
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellants' "invention relates to a gas valve unit for setting a gas
volumetric flow that is fed to a gas burner of a gas appliance, in particular a
gas cooking appliance." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 15, 31, 4 7, and 49 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
15. A gas valve unit, comprising a plurality of individually
actuatable throttle sections arranged in parallel relation for
setting a throughflow rate of a gas volumetric flow that is fed to
a single gas output that leads to a gas burner of a gas appliance,
wherein the plurality of throttle sections permit
simultaneous flow of the gas through at least two of the plurality
of throttle sections to the single gas output, and
each of the throttle sections has a plurality of throttle
points arranged in series.
Rejections
I. Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23-28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39--44, and
47--49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over
Clauss et al. (US 2006/0016444 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2006) ("Clauss") and
Cadeau et al. (US 2012/0111434 Al, pub. May 10, 2012) ("Cadeau").
II. Claims 20, 22, 36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Clauss, Cadeau, and Chen
(US 2002/0086255 Al, pub. July 4, 2002).
III. Claims 29, 30, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Clauss, Cadeau, and Buse et al.
(US 8,579,254 B2, iss. Nov. 12, 2013) ("Buse").
2
Appeal2018-001646
Application 14/241, 140
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner's rejection of independent claim 15 includes the
following reasoning for combining the teachings of Clauss and Cadeau:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art . . . to modify the valve unit of Clauss . . . with a throttle
section as taught by Cadeau . . . for the advantage of having
specific throttle sections that each provide a different throttling
function for the gas flow.
Final Act. 4 ( citing Cadeau ,r 44).
The Appellants acknowledge the reasoning for the Examiner's
combination and "submit that Clauss already provides eight different
throttling settings and as such there would have been no reason (without the
teachings of the current Application) to modify Clauss with the teachings of
Cadeau." Appeal Br. 12. The Appellants' position is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
In response, the Examiner reasons that "[t]he advantage provided by
the plurality of throttling points in series as taught by Cadeau ... is to
provide a more specific and defined throttling gas flow than a single
throttling point would provide to enable a more controlled gas flow and
hence provide a more specific throttled gas." Ans. 8. The reasoning
provided by the Examiner is articulated well and has rational underpinning.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds ... [require] some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.")
(cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007)).
3
Appeal2018-001646
Application 14/241, 140
The Appellants point out that their invention "provide[ s] a plurality of
throttle points arranged in series for each of the throttle sections in order to
provide flexibility so that the gas valve unit can be used with different types
of gas without having to disassemble the unit and change nozzle plates."
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Spec. ,r,r 7-9). The Appellants argue that Clauss and
Cadeau do not discuss this need and "there would have been no motivation
to combine the throttling structure of Cadeau with the structure of Clauss."
Appeal Br. 12; see Reply Br. 3--4. The Appellants' position is not
persuasive of Examiner error as patent examiners are not foreclosed to look
only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve in determining a reason
to combine the elements in the manner claimed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clauss and Cadeau. For the
same reason, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 18, 19,
21, 23-28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39--44, and 47--49, which is not argued
separately. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
Re} ection II
The Appellants point out that claims 20, 22, 36, and 38 depend from
one of independent claims 15 and 3 1, and argue that Chen does not remedy
the alleged deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 15 and 31. See
Appeal Br. 12-13. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with
the Appellants that the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 31 suffers
from the alleged deficiency.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 20, 22, 36, and 38
as being unpatentable over Clauss, Cadeau, and Chen.
4
Appeal2018-001646
Application 14/241, 140
Re} ection III
The Appellants point out that claims 29, 30, 45, and 46 depend from
one of independent claims 15 and 3 1, and argue that Buse does not remedy
the alleged deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 15 and 31. See
Appeal Br. 13-14. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with
the Appellants that the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 31 suffers
from the alleged deficiency.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 29, 30, 45, and 46
as being unpatentable over Clauss, Cadeau, and Buse.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15, 16, 18-32,
and 34--49.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5