Ex Parte ROTTER et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 9, 201915383145 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/383,145 12/19/2016 27238 7590 05/13/2019 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 North M63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chad ROTTER 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. SUB-09127-US-NP 6814 EXAMINER ROERSMA, ANDREW MARK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2019 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): MAIL@DWPATENTLAW.COM deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PatentDocketing@w hirlpool. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAD ROTTER, SANKET V. PHALAK, and JEEVAN S. YADAV Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, BRANDON J. WARNER, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant, Whirlpool Corporation, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The disclosure is directed to a refrigerator "and, more particularly, to a crisper drawer for a refrigerator." Spec. i-fl. The disclosure pertains, at least in one respect, to the manner in which the crisper drawer is secured to a glide. Unlike in the prior art illustrated in Figures 2A through 2D, the Specification discloses a drawer having retaining clips (Fig. 3A, ref. 300, 301) that couple to endcaps of glide rails (Fig. 4A, ref. 405, 406), which coupling prevents the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail. See, e.g., id. ,I3 ("The retaining clip is directly coupled to the glide endcap. The retaining clip and the glide endcap prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail."). The Rejected Claims Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 are rejected. Final Act. 1. 1 Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below. 1. A refrigerator comprising: a refrigerated compartment; a door configured to selectively seal the refrigerated compartment; a drawer assembly mounted in the refrigerated compartment, wherein the drawer assembly includes: a glide having: a glide rail movable relative to the refrigerated compartment; and 1 Dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected to. Final Act. 1. 2 Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 a glide endcap directly coupled to the glide rail; and a drawer having: a front wall, a rear wall, a bottom wall and opposing side walls; a retaining clip directly coupled to the glide endcap, wherein the retaining clip and the glide endcap prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). 3 Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 The Appealed Rejections The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before us for review: 1. claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 over Go2 and Litchfield3 (Final Act. 3); and 2. claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and Seo4 (id. at 5); and 3. claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and Ertz5 (id. at 6). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Go and Litchfield. The Examiner found that Go, which is directed to a refrigerator (see Go, [54]), teaches all of the subject matter of the independent claims except for a retaining clip directly coupled to the glide endcap "wherein the retaining clip and the glide endcap prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Final Act. 3 (citing Go i-fi-f62, 63, and 75-82, Figs. 1--4). In particular, the Examiner found that Go's groove 41 directly couples to protrusion 111 a on the endcap of the glide rail. Final Act. 3; see also Go i-f82. But Go's groove 2 WO 2015/030546 Al, published March 5, 2015, is foreign language application by Hyoung Min Go et al. US 2016/0216027 Al, published July 28, 2016, is an English language version of the same application. Final Act. 3. The Examiner's references to "Go" are to the WO application if to drawings, and to the US application if to text. Id. We follow suit. 3 US 4,042,288, issued Aug. 16, 1977 ("Litchfield"). 4 KR 10-2009-0133009, published Dec. 31, 2009 ("Seo"). 5 US 7,406,833 B2, issued Aug. 5, 2008 ("Ertz"). 4 Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 simply rests on protrusion 111 a; it does not couple to it in a manner that would "prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail," as recited in the claims. The Examiner found that Litchfield, which is directed to extruded plastic panel drawers (see Litchfield, [54]), "discloses the attachment of drawer components with a lug 15/23 and a hole 17 /24" and determined that it would have been obvious to use the same on Go's groove and endcap protrusion "as the combination of prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art." Final Act. 3. Appellant presents multiple arguments against the rejection of the independent claims. The first argument is that Go's groove is not a retaining clip. Appeal Br. 7. Although we agree with Appellant that the unmodified groove is not a retaining clip, Appellant's argument is not persuasive of error. The articulated rejection relies on a modification of Go's groove, namely the incorporation of a hole corresponding to a lug. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). We are satisfied that the groove as so modified is a "retaining clip" as recited in the claims. However, Appellant's next argument is persuasive. Namely, "[t]here is nothing in these references to suggest using such structure to attach a drawer to a glide, as claimed." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply 2 ("Typically, in the prior art, only a loose connection is provided between the drawer and the glide, i.e., relative movement is allowed between these components."). 5 Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 As Appellant points out, Litchfield teaches its detent members 15/23 and openings 17 /24 (termed "lugs" and "holes" by Examiner) for the purpose of securing different parts of a drawer to one another ( e.g., a sidewall to a front wall). Appeal Br. 8 (citing Litchfield Figs. 1-2). But the Examiner never explains satisfactorily why a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent improper hindsight, would have any objective reason to couple a refrigerator drawer retaining clip to a glide endcap to "prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail," as recited in the claims. The Examiner's cited reason is to "to predictably 'prevent accidental separation of the parts."' Final Act. 3 (quoting Litchfield 2:34, 3:2-3). Litchfield explicitly teaches this, but the teaching is in reference to the parts of its drawer, which must remain connected if the drawer is to remain a drawer. Litchfield 2:34, 3:2-3. Litchfield does not teach its detent members and openings to prevent accidental separation of its drawer from some other structure such as a glide, cabinet, or dresser. Further, the Examiner has not established that Go's drawer is at risk of accidental separation from its glide. In fact, Go's drawer appears to be designed, as with the prior art illustrated in Figures 2A through 2D of the Specification, to facilitate intentional-only separation of the drawer by requiring lifting of the drawer when in an extended position. See Go Fig. 4. We are fully satisfied that a person of ordinary skill in the art could easily combine the cited prior art teachings. However, we are not satisfied that the Examiner has identified a reason the skilled person would do so. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 as unpatentable over Go and Litchfield. 6 Appeal2018-007004 Application 15/383,145 Rejections 2 and 3 Claims 21-23 depend from dependent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Appeal Br. 23. The rejections of claims 21-23 are explicitly premised on claims 1, 8, and 15 being rendered obvious by Go and Litchfield. See Final Act. 5---6. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 21-23 for reasons already discussed. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 over Go and Litchfield is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and Seo is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and Ertz is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation