BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2020004083 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 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.
14/251,730 04/14/2014 Charles Daughtridge JR. 2013P03694US 9407
46726 7590 01/01/2021
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
EXAMINER
JONES, LOGAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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):
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 CHARLES DAUGHTRIDGE JR.,
TIFFANY E. INGERSOLL, and BENJAMIN KNIGHT

Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 9, 12–32, and 34–39.2 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. The Appellant identifies “[t]he real parties in interest a[s]
BSH Home Appliances Corporation and BSH Hausgeräte GMBH.” Appeal
Br. 3.
2 Claims 40 and 41 are allowable. Final Act. 36.
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A home cooking appliance comprising:
a housing;
a gas cooktop on the housing, the gas cooktop having a
lower cooktop floor and an upper cooktop surface, the gas
cooktop having a cooktop burner on the upper cooktop surface;
and
a removable sub-assembly system configured to be
removable and transportable separate from the housing and the
gas cooktop, the removable sub-assembly system including:
a gas rail system on the housing, the gas rail
system disposed between the lower cooktop floor and the upper
cooktop surface, the gas rail system comprising at least one rail
including at least one mounting section and a support feature on
each end of the at least one rail, each support feature configured
to engage a corresponding support feature of the housing to
support the at least one mounting section of the at least one rail
in a spaced manner from the lower cooktop floor; and
mechanical functional components and electrical
functional components of the gas cooktop needed for gas leak
testing the gas cooktop,
wherein the at least one mounting section of the
gas rail system supports and secures both the mechanical and
electrical functional components of the gas cooktop in a manner
in which the mechanical and electrical functional components
are capable of being tested and transported in an assembled
state with the gas rail system of the removable subassembly
system separate from the housing and the gas cooktop, and
wherein the at least one mounting section of the
gas rail system supports and secures both the mechanical and
electrical functional components of the gas cooktop in a spaced
manner from the lower cooktop floor when the gas rail system
is on the housing.
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
3

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bell US 1,159,351 Nov. 9, 1915
Rogers US 1,609,575 Dec. 7, 1926
Fox US 2,035,060 Mar. 24, 1936
Morgan US 2,065,719 Dec. 29, 1936
Carlson US 2,955,715 Oct. 11, 1960
Wakeman US 5,192,048 Mar. 9, 1993
Mühle et al. (“Mühle”) US 6,318,357 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Sanche3 FR 2 920 521 Mar. 6, 2009
Lighting the Forgemaster TM, Forgemaster TM, pp. 1–3 (June 5, 2003),
http://www.forgemaster.com/view_section.php?section=29 (last viewed
December 29, 2020) (“Forgemaster”).

Rejections
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.4
Claims 1, 3, 9, 12–16, 18, 32, 34–37, and 39 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sanche and Bell.5
Claims 2, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Carlson.

3 Citations to Sanche are directed to the Drawings in the foreign publication
as well as the English translation of the reference, hereinafter “Sanche
Translation.”
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Ans. 3.
5 Although the Examiner sets forth separate statements for the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 14–16, 18, 34, and 35 (Final Act. 6) and claims 9, 12, 13, 32, 36,
37, and 39 (id. at 22), we consolidate the statements into a single ground of
rejection because they are each based upon the same combination of
references.
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
4

Claims 4, 22, 23, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Mühle.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, and Rogers.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sanche, Bell, and Morgan.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster, and Wakeman.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster, Wakeman, and Carlson.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster, Wakeman, and Mühle.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, and Fox.

ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 29 and 30 as Indefinite
The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite
because it depends from canceled claim 5. Final Act. 5. Claim 30 depends
from claim 29 and is rejected for the same reason. See id.; Ans. 3. Although
the Appellant asserts that claim 29 is definite, the Appellant does not
advance an argument as to the error in the Examiner’s rejection. See Appeal
Br. 18, 21; Reply Br. 1–2. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 29 and 30.

Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
5

The Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 9, 12–16, 18, 32, 34–37, and 39 as
Unpatentable Over Sanche and Bell
The Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Sanche and Bell
fail to disclose the following recitations of claim 1:
a removable sub-assembly system configured to be
removable and transportable separate from the housing and the
gas cooktop . . . [and]
wherein the at least one mounting section of the
gas rail system supports and secures both the mechanical and
electrical functional components of the gas cooktop in a manner
in which the mechanical and electrical functional components
are capable of being tested and transported in an assembled
state with the gas rail system of the removable subassembly
system separate from the housing and the gas cooktop.
See Reply Br. 2–3; Appeal Br. 23–25.
The Examiner relies on Sanche’s Figure 5, which shows a set of four
assembled gas feeders, to teach these recitations of claim 1. See Final
Act. 7; Sanche Translation 3. More specifically, the Examiner finds that
Sanche’s Figure 5 depicts gas supply device 1 for a gas cooking appliance
with cross member 7 (i.e., rails) having a mounting section and a support
feature on each of its ends. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that the
claimed “at least one mounting section” corresponds to the mounting
sections of rail 7. Id. The Examiner finds gas supply device 1 includes
injector 2, gas supply tube 3, injector support 4, spark plugs 26, and valves
34 that correspond to the claimed “mechanical and electrical functional
components of the gas cooktop.” Id.
The support for the Appellant’s argument relies primarily on Sanche’s
disclosure concerning the fixation of gas supply tube 3 to gas supply valve
34 and nozzle holder 4. Appeal Br. 24–25; Reply Br. 5–6. The Appellant
asserts:
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
6

One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that, in
Sanche, the arrangement of the gas supply lines 3, and
particularly the arrangement of the free ends of each of the gas
supply lines 3 supporting the weight of the gas valves 34,
would result in an undesirable moment on the connection of the
gas lines 3 to the rails 7 if the components were attempted to be
transported by the rail 7 in an assembled state, which may result
in undesirable damage to the gas lines or connections (e.g.,
bending, breaking, cracking, etc.).
Appeal Br. 25; see Reply Br. 5–6. In response, the Examiner explains that
this assertion is not persuasive because it lacks objective evidence. Ans. 4
(“[T]he [A]ppellant only supposes that damage may occur to the assembly as
seen in [F]igure 5 of Sanche if it were transported separately from the
housing.”). The Examiner has the better position.
We appreciate that the Appellant’s assertion relies on an explanation
“based on commonly known principles of physics” (Reply Br. 6), however
the Examiner is correct to point out that the assertion is inadequately
supported by objective evidence. Further, we note that the Appellant’s
assertion appears to assume that Sanche’s assembly must be transported in
the orientation as shown in Figure 5. We disagree with this assumption. We
do not understand there to be any reason why Sanche’s assembly must be
transported in the orientation as shown in Figure 5. Additionally, we fail to
understand why one of ordinary skill in the art would transport Sanche’s
assembly in an orientation having an “undesirable moment” on the
connection of gas line 3 to rail 7. All one of ordinary skill in the art would
need to do is change the orientation of the assembly (e.g., align the assembly
vertically) to lessen the moment on the connection of gas line 3 to rail 7.
The support for the Appellant’s argument also relies on the lack of
explicit disclosure in Sanche concerning the order of assembly. Id. at 4.
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
7

More specifically, the Appellant asserts that “Sanche does not appear to
explicitly describe the order of assembly of the various components on a
[gas] hob of a cooking appliance” (id.), but that Sanche seems to explain that
when cross member 7 is connected to the gas hob, the gas supply device 1 is
assembled on the cross member 7 (see id.). The Appellant’s point is not
persuasive of Examiner error. We note that the home cooking appliance of
claim 1 does not call for a specific order of assembly. And, the disclosed
assembly of Sanche’s gas hob does not suggest that the rails are not
removable and transportable separate from the gas hob’s housing.
We have considered the remaining points advanced by the Appellant
in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, and have determined that they are
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Sanche and Bell. The Appellant does not provide a
separate argument for the rejection of claims 3, 9, 12–16, 18, 32, 34–37, and
39. See Appeal Br. 22, 28, 36. Thus, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3, 9, 12–16, 18, 32, 34–37, and 39.

The Rejection of Claims 2, 19, 21, and 24 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell,
and Carlson
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2, 19, and 21 is in error because the alleged error in the rejection of
claim 1 is not cured by the teachings of Carlson. See Appeal Br. 28. As
discussed above, the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner
error and therefore, whether Carlson’s teachings cure the alleged deficiency
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
8

is a moot point. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 19
and, 21 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Carlson.
For the rejection of independent claim 24, the Appellant essentially
reiterates the arguments for the rejection of claims 1, 2, 19, and 21. See
Appeal Br. 28–33. For similar reasons as discussed above, the Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.

The Rejection of Claims 4, 22, 23, and 29–31 as unpatentable over Sanche,
Bell, and Mühle
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 4, 22, 23, and 29–31 is in error because the alleged error in the
rejection of claim 1 is not cured by the teachings of Mühle. See id. at 34–36.
As discussed above, the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of
Examiner error and therefore, whether Mühle’s teachings cure the alleged
deficiency is a moot point. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4, 22, 23, and 29–31 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Mühle.

The Rejection of Claim 17 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Rogers
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 17 is in error because the alleged error in the rejection of claim 1 is not
cured by the teachings of Rogers. See id. at 36–37. As discussed above, the
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error and therefore,
whether Rogers’ teachings cure the alleged deficiency is a moot point.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, and Rogers.

Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
9

The Rejection of Claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and
Morgan
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 19 and 20 is in error because the alleged error in the rejection of
claim 1 is not cured by the teachings of Morgan. See Appeal Br. 37. As
discussed above, the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner
error and therefore, whether Morgan’s teachings cure the alleged deficiency
is a moot point. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and
20 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Morgan.

The Rejection of Claims 25 and 27 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell,
Forgemaster, and Wakeman
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 25 is in error because it includes a similar error as the rejection of
claim 1, which is not cured by the teachings of Forgemaster and Wakeman.
See id. at 37–39. As discussed above, the Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive of Examiner error and therefore, whether teachings of
Forgemaster and Wakeman cure the alleged deficiency is a moot point.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster, and Wakeman. The Appellant does not provide
a separate argument for the rejection of claim 27. See id. at 39. Thus, we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable over
Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster, and Wakeman.

Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
10

The Rejection of Claim 26 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster,
Wakeman, and Carlson
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 26, which depends from independent claim 25, is in error because the
alleged error in the rejection of claim 1 is not cured by the teachings of
Forgemaster, Wakeman, and Carlson. See Appeal Br. 39–40. As discussed
above, the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error and
therefore, whether the teachings of Forgemaster, Wakeman, and Carlson
cure the alleged deficiency is a moot point. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster,
Wakeman, and Carlson.

The Rejection of Claim 28 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster,
Wakeman, and Mühle
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 28, which depends from independent claim 25, is in error because the
alleged error in the rejection of claim 1 is not cured by the teachings of
Forgemaster, Wakeman, and Mühle. See id. at 40–41. As discussed above,
the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error and
therefore, whether the teachings of Forgemaster, Wakeman, and Mühle cure
the alleged deficiency is a moot point. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 28 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, Forgemaster,
Wakeman, and Mühle.

The Rejection of Claim 38 as unpatentable over Sanche, Bell, and Fox
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 38 is in error because the alleged error in the rejection of claim 1 is not
Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
11

cured by the teachings of Fox. See Appeal Br. 41–42. As discussed above,
the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error and
therefore, whether Fox’s teachings cure the alleged deficiency is a moot
point. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 as unpatentable
over Sanche, Bell, and Fox.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
29, 30 112(b) Indefinite 29, 30

1, 3, 9,
12–16, 18,
32, 34–37,
39
103 Sanche, Bell 1, 3, 9,
12–16, 18,
32, 34–37,
39

2, 19, 21, 24 103 Sanche, Bell, Carlson 2, 19, 21,
24

4, 22, 23,
29–31
103 Sanche, Bell, Mühle 4, 22, 23,
29–31

17 103 Sanche, Bell, Rogers 17
19, 20 103 Sanche, Bell, Morgan 19, 20
25, 27 103 Sanche, Bell,
Forgemaster,
Wakeman
25, 27
26 103 Sanche, Bell,
Forgemaster,
Wakeman, Carlson
26
28 103 Sanche, Bell,
Forgemaster,
Wakeman, Mühle
28
38 103 Sanche, Bell, Fox 38
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 9,
12–32,
34–39

Appeal 2020-004083
Application 14/251,730
12

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

AFFIRMED