Ex Parte Moser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201311658246 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HERMANN MOSER, BERND SCHESSL, and RAINER SCHÜTZ ____________ Appeal 2011-007680 Application 11/658,246 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 19-21 and 23-39. App. Br. 3. Claims 1-18 and 22 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-007680 Application 11/658,246 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 19, 36, and 39 are independent. Claim 19 is reproduced below: 19. A crockery basket for receiving a plurality of different items of crockery for handling of such crockery in a dishwasher machine, the crockery basket comprising: a holding device having a plurality of prongs, the holding device being foldable between different pivoting positions and having at least two folding prong rows, each of the at least two folding prong rows being folded independently of each other between different pivoting positions, wherein an axis of rotation of a first folding prong row of the at least two folding prong rows is arranged above a wire mat of the crockery basket, and wherein an axis of rotation of a second folding prong row of the at least two folding prong rows is arranged below the wire mat of the crockery basket. REJECTION Claims 19-21 and 23-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fiocca (US 3,752,322; iss. Aug. 14, 1973). ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 19-21 and 23-39 as a group. App. Br. 8-15. We select claim 19 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 20, 21, and 23-39 stand or fall with claim 19. The Examiner found that Fiocca discloses a crockery basket with all the features recited in claim 19 including at least two folding prong rows 43, 43 in Figure 3 or 34, 36 in Figure 4, and that the axis of rotation of one of the folding prong rows is above the horizontal centerline of the wire mat 24 and an axis of rotation of the other folding prong row is below the wire mat Appeal 2011-007680 Application 11/658,246 3 24. Ans. 4. The Examiner interpreted claim 19 as not reciting any features of a wire mat and reasoned that Figure 3 of Fiocca discloses a wire mat 24 that extends so that an axis of rotation of the leftmost folding prong rows 43 is above a centerline of wire mat 24 and an axis of rotation of the rightmost folding prong rows is below a centerline of wire mat 24. The Examiner identified the centerline of the wire mat 24 with a circle on Figure 3 between the two axes of rotation. Ans. 6-7 (annotating Figures 2-4 of Fiocca). Appellants argue that Fiocca does not disclose a first folding prong row with an axis of rotation above a wire mat of the crockery basket and a second folding row with an axis of rotation below the wire mat, as recited in claims 19, 36, and 39. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 14-15. Appellants also assert that Figure 3 of Fiocca discloses that the axes of rotation of all of the prongs 43 are disposed over or above the wire mat 24 and does not disclose any part of the wire prongs 43 being disposed below the wire mat 24 in Figures 2-4. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 16-17. Appellants contend that the term “wire mat” means a coarse, woven, plaited, or felted fabric made of wire used especially as a floor covering or a support, and Appellants’ Figure 1 shows a wire mat 6 as the woven pieces of wire forming the floor (or mat) of the crockery basket. Reply Br. 12-13. The claims do not require the axes of rotation of the first or second folding prong rows to be above or below any specific portion of the wire mat or the entire wire mat. Even applying Appellants’ proffered definition of “wire mat,” we agree with the Examiner that Fiocca discloses a wire mat having a plurality of wires 24 where a first folding prong row has an axis of rotation “above a wire mat of the crockery basket” in that the axis of rotation is above a portion of the wire support, and a second folding prong row has Appeal 2011-007680 Application 11/658,246 4 an axis of rotation “below a wire mat of the crockery basket” in that it is below a portion of the wire support, as shown in Figure 3. We decline to read unclaimed features from the Specification into the claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 19-21 and 23-39. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 19-21 and 23-39. AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation