Ex Parte Bohm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

13131044 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/131,044 05/25/2011
46726 7590 07115/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Bohm
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.
2008P03460WOUS 2946
EXAMINER
ING,MATTHEWW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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 ANDREAS BOHM, KLAUS FORSTERLING,
KEMAL GENC, JOHANNES GEYER, and
STEFAN SCHMIDT
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andreas Bohm et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneider (US 2005/0257326 Al; pub. Nov.
24, 2005). 1' 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Claims 1-16 are canceled.
2 In the Answer, the Examiner finds that, even if Appellants are correct
regarding the obviousness rejection, claim 17 appears to be anticipated by
Schneider. Ans. 4. Appellants' Reply Brief addresses the Examiner's new
finding of anticipation. Reply Br., passim. However, we need not reach the
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a household appliance including at least
one wall with a plurality of embossings. Sole independent claim 17,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
17. A household appliance, comprising:
a cabinet-shaped housing comprised of a plurality of walls,
at least one of the walls having an arrangement of embossings,
said arrangement of embossings comprising:
a first embossing arranged centered in relation to a
center of said at least one wall and configured in the shape
of a ring when viewed from above,
a second embossing arranged outside the first
embossing in substantial concentric relationship to the first
embossing, said second embossing configured in the shape
of a ring when viewed from above, and
at least one third embossing configured in the shape
of a strip and arranged outside the second embossing,
wherein the first, second and third embossings are formed
by cur1atures.
OPINION
Claims 17-22, 25-27, and 29-35
Appellants argue claims 17-22, 25-27, and 29-35 as a group. Appeal
Br. 7. We select independent claim 17 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2015). Claims 18-22, 25-27, and 29-35 stand or fall with
claim 17.
The Examiner finds that Schneider discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 17 except for "a first embossing arranged centered in
issue of anticipation because the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneider is dispositive.
2
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
relation to a center of said at least one wall and configured in the shape of a
ring when viewed from above." Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Schneider teaches an arrangement of embossings, including "a
second embossing (58) configured in the shape of a ring when viewed from
above, and at least one third embossing (54, 56) configured in the shape of a
strip and arranged outside the second embossing." Id. Additionally, the
Examiner notes that both the duplication of parts and the resizing of
components involve only routine skill in the art. Id. at 3. As such, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
Id ..
to add a first embossing, having a smaller length & width than,
but having the same shape as, the second embossing, inside the
second embossing of Schneider in order to provide a structural
reinforcement & vibration reduction to the at least one wall
thereof; and to position said first embossing concentrically
within said second embossing, in order to improve the aesthetic
appearance of the wall.
Noting that "Schneider claims that the configuration shown in Fig. 2
effectively performs the desired objectives of Schneider," Appellants argue
that there is no motivation to add an additional embossing to Schneider to
teach the claimed first embossing because "there is no teaching or
suggestion in Schneider of any benefit to putting another area such as
looping valley 58 in interior ridge 60." Appeal Br. 8. Responding to this
argument, the Examiner articulates reasons for the proposed combination
explaining that Schneider teaches "adding an 'embossment pattern [to a side
panel] increases a stiffness of the side panel, thus increasing a first harmonic
or natural frequency' and reduc[es] the panel's propensity to vibrate." Ans.
2 (citing Schneider i-fi-18, 9, 28, and 47). Appellants do not contest the
3
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
Examiner's articulated reasoning. See generally, Reply Br. Thus,
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Appellants further argue that duplicating looping valley 58 would not
result in the claimed invention "because, being the same size, one could not
fit inside the other" and that a "resizing of looping valley 58 of Schneider
would result in a single, smaller or larger looping valley, not two looping
valleys." Appeal Br. 8. Appellants' arguments are unconvincing because
they are not responsive to the rejection specifically articulated by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 3. Responding to this argument, the Examiner
reiterates that the proposed modification "does not contemplate merely
adding another second embossing (58) to the wall (12) of Schneider (as
appellant suggests), but rather adding a first embossing, having smaller
length & width than, but having the same shape as, Schneider's second
embossing, inside the second embossing." Ans. 3. Appellants' argument
addresses either duplicating looping valley 58 without resizing the new,
second looping valley, or resizing looping valley 58 without duplicating it,
but not duplicating looping valley 58 and resizing the new, second looping
valley, as proposed by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of
error.
Appellants further argue that reducing the size of the looping valley
58 to accommodate an additional embossing could impact the effectiveness
of looping valley 58. Appeal Br. 8. However, Appellants have not provided
sufficient explanation or evidence to support the assertion that reducing the
size of an embossing could negatively impact the effectiveness of the
embossings. See id. An attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the
4
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
place of evidence. Jn re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Thus,
Appellants' argument is not convincing.
Appellants finally contend that
to go two steps further and argue that it would have been
obvious to provide a smaller version of looping valley 58 in
addition to the disclosed looping valley 58 and to place them in
a concentric relationship expands the concepts of mere
duplication of parts and resizing of components far beyond their
recognized scope.
Appeal Br. 9. This conclusory argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's determination of obviousness. Appellants fail to explain what
restrictions upon the concepts of duplication of parts or resizing of
components the Examiner's reasoning violates, nor do Appellants allege that
the claimed configuration of embossings provides any new or unexpected
results. Rather, as the Examiner notes, Appellants fail to address the reasons
provided by the Examiner as discussed supra. Thus, Appellants fail to
apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claim 17, and claims 18-22, 25-27, and 29-35, which fall
therewith.
Claims 23, 24, and 28
Claims 23, 24, and 28 depend from claim 17. Each of these claims
recites a shape for the first, second, or third embossings. See Appeal Br. 13-
14. For each claim, the Examiner finds that Schneider fails to explicitly
disclose the claimed shape. Final Act. 4. In addition, the Examiner notes
that the Specification fails to explicitly provide any specific reason for the
claimed shape of the embossing(s). Id. at 6; see also Ans. 5 (noting that
Appellants have not provided evidence that the particular shapes and
5
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
arrangements recited yield unexpected results). The Examiner further notes
that altering the shape of components has been held to involve only routine
skill. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. Based on these factors, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been an "obvious design consideration" to
modify the shape of the embossing of Schneider "depending on the desired
needs of the person constructing the first & second embossings (e.g.,
intended use of the embossings, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease
of manufacture, etc.)." Final Act.6.
Appellants assert that the concept of altering the shape of a
component only applies when the shape does not affect the function of the
component. Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellants argue that "the shape of the
component is the very feature that makes the component function as
designed" and therefore, it would not involve only routine skill to alter the
shape. Id. However, Appellants fail to explain why, or provide evidence
that, the claimed shapes are critical. Rather, as the Examiner notes:
[Appellants] ha[ ve] provided no evidence that the particular
shapes and arrangements recited in claims 23-24 & 28 yield
functional results that would not be expected by one skilled in
the art. On the contrary, both the written description and the
prosecution history of the instant application are entirely devoid
of any evidence supporting any allegation of unexpected results.
Admittedly, par. 8 & 23 of the instant application do characterize
as "surprising" the reduced vibration and noise supposedly
associated with the claimed embossment pattern. Yet neither of
these paragraphs - nor any other portion of the written description
- provides any evidence to support this characterization."
Ans. 5. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing.
Appellants' assertion that the shape of the component is significant in
making the component function as designed is therefore unsupported
attorney's argument. As discussed supra, attorney argument cannot take the
6
Appeal2014-001140
Application 13/131,044
place of evidence. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 23, 24, and 28.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 17-35 is AFFIRMED.
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
7