Ex Parte Kuecuek et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 9, 201211658062 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CENGIZ KUECUEK and BERND SCHESSL ____________ Appeal 2010-010675 Application 11/658,062 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 15-30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-010675 Application 11/658,062 2 Claims 15 and 30 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 15. A dishwasher comprising: a bottom module; and a frameless rinsing container having a bottom, side walls, and a top wall, the bottom module forming the bottom of the rinsing container and the top wall of the rinsing container including a separate top part. 30. A modular structure for a dishwasher, the modular structure comprising: a frameless rinsing container including: a plurality of side walls; a top wall that is separate from the side walls; and a bottom module that is separate from the side walls. The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following rejections1: 1) claims 15 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; 2) claims 15 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Reuter (US 6,550,488 B2, issued April 22, 2003); 3) claims 15, 16, 19-22, 25, 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jerg (US 2004/0003832 A1, pub. Jan. 08, 2004) in view of Reuter; 4) claims 18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined prior art of Jerg, Reuter and 1 The § 112, first paragraph rejection has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 11). Appeal 2010-010675 Application 11/658,062 3 Wrangberth (US 5,368,379, issued Nov. 29, 1994); 5) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined prior art of Jerg, Reuter; and Altenschöpfer (US 4,465,612, issued Aug. 14, 1984); 6) claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined prior art of Jerg, Reuter, and Somaino (FR 2,595,937, pub. Sep. 25, 1987). ANALYSIS The § 112, second paragraph, Rejection It is well established that, as stated in Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted): The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no more. The Examiner determines that each of claims 15 and 30 is indefinite because of the term “frameless”. However, after consideration of the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the claims reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention. As aptly pointed out by Appellants, the Specification discusses the problems (e.g., expense) in the prior art wherein the rinsing container of a dishwasher requires that a framework is used (App. Br. 13; Spec. 1:17-23), whereas Appellants’ description of their invention focuses on the simplified, less expensive structure of the rinsing container (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 16). Appellants Appeal 2010-010675 Application 11/658,062 4 further point out that Figure 1 of their invention (which is the only figure) does not include a frame upon which the rinsing container is arranged (id.). While claims 15 and 30 are broad, they are not indefinite on the basis of breadth. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) (“[B]readth is not indefiniteness.”). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 30 which appears to be based mainly on the breadth with which the Examiner has interpreted claim 1, an interpretation with which we do not agree. The § 102 Rejection After consideration of the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown where Reuter teaches a frameless rinsing container for a dishwasher as recited in the claims 15 and 30 (App. Br. 16, 17 ). Specifically, Appellants have argued that the modular storage cabinet of Reuter is not “frameless” as required by each of claims 15 and 30 (id.; see also Reply Br. 22-24). The Examiner has provided no response to Appellants’ contention that the tubes 59 and C-shaped locking sleeves of Reuter “form a frame of the modular office storage cabinet since the structure requires these pieces to support and secure the wall panels together” (App. Br. 17; generally Ans., including Response to Argument section). Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of Appellants’ position on this issue. In addition, the Examiner has not directed our attention to any evidence nor provided any persuasive line of technical reasoning that the modular storage cabinet of Reuter is a dishwasher, or is capable of being used for a dishwasher, when the term “dishwasher” is given its broadest Appeal 2010-010675 Application 11/658,062 5 reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification (see generally Ans.; e.g., App. Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 24). The Examiner’s mere conclusory statement that the storage cabinet of Reuter could be so used (e.g. Ans. 13, 14) falls short of meeting his burden to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability, and also requires an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language.2 See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (Internal citation omitted.))3 Under these circumstances, we reverse the § 102 rejection of claims 15 and 30. The § 103 Rejections All of the § 103 rejections made by the Examiner rely upon the combined prior art of Jerg and Reuter. Appellants argue that since each of 2 It is noted, however, that GB 1,227,699 (shown on IFW as a “Foreign Reference” of 4 pages) listed on the PTO-1449 IDS form filed by Appellants on 01/19/2007 appears to teach a frameless sheet metal tub for a dishwashing machine comprised of U-shaped wall member 3, cover plate 4 and bottom tray member 2. 3 It has also been held that when the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, the preamble limits claim scope. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Appeal 2010-010675 Application 11/658,062 6 Jerg and Reuter include a frame, they do not teach a frameless rinsing container as required in claims 15 and 30 (App. Br. 19). The Examiner admits that Jerg discloses a dishwasher rinsing container having a frame, but states that “it would be obvious to provide a frameless rinsing container, because such would only require separating the frame of JERG et al., and it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art” (Ans. 5), and relies upon Reuter as evidence that “such [frameless] container construction is well known” (Ans. 5). As pointed out by Appellants, Reuter does not teach a frameless rinsing container, and the Answer fails to provide any reasonable explanation as to why or how such a modification would be made to the framed rinsing container of Jerg (Reply Br. 27). The Examiner has not relied upon any of the other applied references to remedy the deficiencies of Jerg and Reuter in this regard (see generally Ans.). Thus, on this record, we are constrained to reverse all of the § 103 rejections. DECISION We reverse the §§ 112, 102 and 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal. REVERSED ssl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation