Ex Parte Radtke

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2007

10249909 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID E. RADTKE
____________

Appeal 2007-2189
Application 10/249,909
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: July 30, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS,
and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 1-11 and 13-28. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2007-2189
Application 10/249,909

INTRODUCTION
Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative:
1. A welding-type apparatus housing comprising:

an end panel;

a bezel attached to the end panel and having a plurality of covers
pivotally attached to the bezel over a plurality of terminal posts openings,
each having a passage therein to allow cable passage therethrough when the
covers are in a closed position.

17. A welding-type device comprising:

an end panel;

a bezel attached to the end panel of the welding-type device; and

a plurality of covers pivotally attached to the bezel by a common
hinge pin.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Suret US 5,091,827 Feb. 25, 1992
Brownlie US 5,122,069 Jun. 16, 1992
Latvis US 5,734,148 Mar. 31, 1998

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-11, 13-16, 19-21, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Latvis in view of Suret and
Brownlie.
2. Claims 17, 18, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Latvis in view of Suret.
2
Appeal 2007-2189
Application 10/249,909

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER LATVIS IN VIEW OF SURET

Appellant argues that there is no motivation for the combination of
Latvis in view of Suret (Br. 12). Appellant further argues that the “bezel”
claim feature is not disclosed by Latvis or Suret (Br. 12).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 18,
and 22-26 over Latvis in view of Suret.
It is questionable if the claimed “bezel” is met by Latvis’ “shaped
edges of the end panel that fit with the sides and the top of the welding
device” as “bezel” is defined by Examiner (Answer 7). However, regardless
if the “bezel” claim feature is disclosed by Latvis, there is nothing in the
references that would have suggested the combination of Suret’s flaps with
Latvis’ welding machine. In fact, the Examiner’s motivation for combining
Suret’s flaps with Latvis’ welding machine (i.e., “to provide completely
unhindered access to the modules” (Answer 4)) is contrary to Latvis’
disclosure. Latvis has no covers obstructing access to knobs 7 or terminals
on front panel 5 (Latvis, Figure 1, reference numerals 5 and 7), such that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to add Suret’s
flaps to Latvis’ front panel 5 to provide unhindered access to the terminals
and knobs when Latvis already has unhindered access (i.e., no cover).
It is clear that the Examiner has applied impermissible hindsight to
piece together Latvis’ and Suret’s disclosures to arrive at Appellant’s
claimed invention. It is improper to use hindsight in the selection of
3
Appeal 2007-2189
Application 10/249,909

references that comprise the case of obviousness. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims
17, 18, and 22-26.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER LATVIS IN VIEW OF SURET
AND BROWNLIE

As noted above, the combination of Latvis in view of Suret is based
on impermissible hindsight. Brownlie’s disclosure does not cure the
deficiencies of the Latvis in view of Suret combination.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims
1-11, 13-16, 19-21, 27, and 28 over Latvis in view of Suret and Brownlie.

DECISION
We have reversed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, 19-21, 27,
and 28 over Latvis in view of Suret and Brownlie.
We have reversed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 18, and 22-26 over
Latvis in view of Suret.
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED.

REVERSED

[

cam

4
Appeal 2007-2189
Application 10/249,909

Ziolkowski Patent Solutions Group, SC (ITW)
14135 North Cedarburg Road
Mequon, WI 53097

5