Bader Intellectual Design, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

15464151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/464,151 03/20/2017 CAYD PAUL BADER 6738-3-CIP-CON 8716
22442 7590 09/29/2020
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
TEFERA, HIWOT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
e-docket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CAYD P. BADER
____________

Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4 and 10–13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party as Cayd P. Bader. Appeal
Br. 1.
2 Claims 5–9 are allowed. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary).
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to framed cabinetry and more
specifically relates to novel and improved face frames for cabinets which
enable substantially increased access through the front opening into the
interior of the cabinet over traditional framed cabinets.” Spec. 1, ll. 8–10.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A cabinet, comprising:
a panel assembly configured to affix to a wall, the panel
assembly comprising:
a first side panel, a second side panel, and a bottom
panel, each panel having an inner surface and an outer surface,
the inner surface of each panel faces an interior space of the
panel assembly and the outer surface of each panel forms an
exterior surface of the panel assembly, the panel assembly
having a front end with an opening having a lateral width and
a vertical height, and wherein there is an absence of any frame
member extending along substantially the full depth of the
panel assembly; and
a face frame connected to the front end of the panel
assembly, the face frame including:
a first vertical frame member interconnected to the
first side panel and having an inner surface and an outer
surface, the inner surface being substantially flush to the
inner surface of the first side panel and the outer surface
extending laterally outward of the outer surface of the
first side panel, the first vertical frame member having a
longer dimension extending parallel to the first side panel
and a shorter dimension extending perpendicular to the
first side panel;
a second vertical frame member interconnected to
the second side panel and having an inner surface and an
outer surface, the inner surface being substantially flush
to the inner surface of the second side panel and the outer
surface extending laterally outward of the outer surface
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

3
of the second side panel, the second vertical frame
member having a longer dimension extending parallel to
the second side panel and a shorter dimension extending
perpendicular to the second side panel;
a top rail extending horizontally between the first
vertical frame member and the second vertical frame
member, the top rail having a depth that extends
approximately perpendicular to the opening of the
cabinet box and a width that extends approximately
parallel to the opening of the cabinet box, wherein the
width of the top rail is greater than the depth of the top
rail, and the top rail having a first end directly connected
to the first vertical frame member and a second end
directly connected to the second vertical frame member;
and
a bottom rail extending horizontally between the
first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame
member, the bottom rail having a depth that extends
approximately perpendicular to the opening of the
cabinet box and a width that extends approximately
parallel to the opening of the cabinet box, wherein the
width of the bottom rail is greater than the depth of the
bottom rail, and the bottom rail having a first end directly
connected to the first vertical frame member and a
second end directly connected to the second vertical
frame member;
wherein the orientation of the first vertical frame member
and the second vertical frame member permit substantially full
access into the interior space of the panel assembly across the
lateral width of the opening, and
wherein the face frame provides structural support to the
panel assembly.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

4
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mitchell (US 3,021,187, issued Feb. 13, 1962), Bradbury
(GB 2450129 A, published Dec. 17, 2008), and Chan (US 6,722,750 B2,
issued Apr. 20, 2004). Final Act. 3.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mitchell, Bradbury, Chan, and Markley (US 6,494,551 B1, issued Dec.
17, 2002). Final Act. 7.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Castro (US 2006/0273085 A1, published Dec. 7, 2006),
Chapman (US 3,150,903, issued Sept. 29, 1964), and Chan. Final Act. 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Castro, Chapman, Chan, and Camper (US 3,743,373, issued July 3, 1973).
Final Act. 11.

ANALYSIS
Claim 10 as Indefinite
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as
indefinite in the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.

Claims 1, 4, and 10 over Mitchell, Bradbury, and Chan
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mitchell discloses a cabinet
comprising, inter alia, a panel assembly comprising a first side panel (side
wall 12) and a second side panel (side wall 14); and a face frame (front
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

5
frame 24) connected to a front end of the panel assembly and including first
and second vertical frame members, a top rail, and a bottom rail. Final Act.
3–4. The Examiner determines that Mitchell does not disclose the following
claim requirements: (a) the inner surface of the first and second vertical
frame members is substantially flush to the inner surface of the respective
first and second side panels; (b) the first and second vertical frame members
have a longer dimension extending parallel to, and a shorter dimension
extending perpendicular to, the respective first and second side panels; and
(c) the orientation of the first and second vertical frame members permits
substantially full access into the interior space of the panel assembly across
the lateral width of the opening of the front end of the panel assembly. Id. at
4–5.
The Examiner relies on Bradbury as teaching first and second vertical
frame members (side panels 32) and side panels (side panels 22) satisfying
limitations (a)–(c). Final Act. 5 (citing Bradbury Fig. 3), 6 (annotated
Bradbury Figure 3). Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the dimensions of Mitchell’s first and second
vertical frame members to make the depth greater than the width, as taught
by Bradbury, “to make the width of the opening wider hence provide extra
space for larger items to be stored within the cabinet box.” Id.
The Examiner further determines that the Mitchell/Bradbury
combination does not teach (d) that the outer surface of each of the first and
second vertical frame members extends laterally outward of the outer
surface of the side panel to which the respective vertical frame member is
attached. Final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Chan as teaching first and
second vertical frame members (side rails 5) and side panels (side panels 7)
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

6
satisfying limitation (d). Id. at 7 (citing Chan Fig. 7a); see also Appellant’s
Figure 3A (identified as “Prior Art”). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the first and second vertical frame members of
the combination of Mitchell/Bradbury to have an outer surface that extends
laterally outward of the outer surface of the respective side panel, as taught
by Chan, “to enhance the appearance of the vertical frame members and to
give an appearance that the vertical members are legs.” Id.
Appellant disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to modify Mitchell’s vertical frame members, but not also
modify Mitchell’s horizontal frame members. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
points out that Bradbury’s front portion 30 has all four members (horizontal
and vertical) positioned in the same way. Id. Appellant contends that using
the Examiner’s logic (i.e., to make the opening larger), one of ordinary skill
would also modify the horizontal frame members to maximize the opening
size. Id. Appellant contends, however, that additionally modifying the
horizontal frame members of Mitchell in the same way as Mitchell’s vertical
frame members would result in the combination not satisfying all recited
claim elements, and, specifically, the requirement that the first and second
vertical frame members and the top and bottom horizontal rails are
differently oriented, with the horizontal frame members oriented with the
width (the dimension parallel to the cabinet opening) greater than the depth
(the dimension perpendicular to the cabinet opening). Id.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s Specification discloses a full
access framed cabinet box where all the frame members are oriented like the
face frame of Bradbury to provide full access to inside the cabinet (i.e., the
depth of each frame member is greater than its width) (see Fig. 14), and also
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

7
discloses that the horizontal frame members can alternatively be flipped in a
semi-full access framed cabinet box (see Fig. 6). Ans. 4. The Examiner
submits that “[Appellant] does not provide a statement of criticality in
having a semi-full access framed cabinet as oppose[d] to a full access
framed cabinet.” Id. The Examiner also submits that the modification is a
mere change in the size of Mitchell’s vertical frame members. Id. at 4–5.
Appellant contends, “[Appellant] has established that his invention
uniquely achieves the benefits of a face frame style cabinet simultaneously
with benefits available in a frameless cabinet. . . .” Id. Appellant explains
these benefits. Id. at 8–9 (citing Declaration of Cayd Bader dated Dec. 12,
2014, ¶¶ 10–13, 19 (“Bader Declaration”); Spec. p. 1, ll. 1–16; p. 5, ll. 18–
27; p. 7, ll. 23–25; p. 15, l. 6–p. 16, l. 11).
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. Even if “modifying the
dimension of the vertical frame members of Mitchell, such that the depth is
greater than the width, such as taught by [Bradbury] would make the width
of the opening wider hence provide more space to easily insert larger items
within the cabinet” (Final Act. 6), this still does not explain adequately why
a skilled artisan would only modify the vertical frame members of Mitchell
in view of Bradbury, but not also Mitchell’s horizontal frame members.
First, Bradbury teaches that side panels 32 have a longer dimension
parallel to a respective side panel 22, bottom panel 36 has a longer
dimension parallel to bottom panel 26, and top panel 34 has a longer
dimension parallel to top panel 24. See Bradbury Fig. 1. The Examiner
does not identify any disclosure in Bradbury that the bottom panel and top
panel can alternatively have the claimed dimensions and orientations.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that Bradbury teaches, or
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

8
suggests, modifying Mitchell’s cabinet to only change the dimensions of
side panels 32 to make the depth greater than the width, but not also modify
the dimensions of top panel 34 and bottom panel 36 in the same manner.
Second, the Examiner does not explain adequately why one of
ordinary skill would not also modify top panel 34 and bottom panel 36 of
Mitchell to further increase the opening size of front frame 24. As pointed
out by Appellant, this would result in the combination not teaching all the
recited claim elements. In light of this and Mitchell’s teachings, the
Examiner’s selective modification is indicative of reliance on improper
hindsight.
Third, even if the Examiner’s statement that “[Appellant] does not
provide a statement of criticality in having a semi-full access framed cabinet
as oppose[d] to a full access framed cabinet” is correct, the Examiner still
has not established that Bradbury teaches or suggests modifying Mitchell to
comprise a semi-full access framed cabinet, as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 4 and 18 depending from claim 1, as unpatentable over Mitchell,
Bradbury, and Chan.

Claims 2 and 3 over Mitchell, Bradbury, Chan, and Markley
The Examiner’s additional reliance on Markley in rejecting claims 2
and 3 does not cure the deficiency in the rejection of parent claim 1 over
Mitchell, Bradbury, and Chan. Final Act. 7–8. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 for same reasons as for claim 1.

Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

9
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, and 13 over Castro, Chapman, and Chan
The Examiner states that the combination teaches the limitations of
claim 1 “as discussed above.” Final Act. 11. As the Examiner addresses
claim 11 prior to addressing claim 1 (see id. at 9–11), we understand that the
Examiner’s position as to the combination of references as applied to claim
11 applies likewise to claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Castro discloses a cabinet comprising a panel
assembly including a first side panel (sidewall 12) and a second side panel
(sidewall 13), as claimed. Final Act. 9 (citing Castro Fig. 3). The Examiner
determines that Castro does not disclose a face frame having two vertical
members and top and bottom rails, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner relies on Chapman as teaching a face frame including
first and second vertical frame members (corner posts 20) that have a longer
dimension extending parallel to, and a shorter dimension (width) extending
perpendicular to, a first side panel (panel 100/horizontal rail 21), and top and
bottom rails (horizontal rails 21) extending horizontally between the first
and second vertical frame members and having a width that is greater than
the depth of the respective rail. Final Act. 9 (citing Chapman Figs. 5, 12).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to include first
and second vertical frame members and top and bottom rails to the frame
member of Castro,” as taught by Chapman. Id. at 9–10 (emphasis added).
The Examiner reasons that this modification would “securely and firmly
hold the components of the cabinet together and provide a stable frame work
to install doors and other hardware.” Id. at 10.
The Examiner determines that the combination of Castro and
Chapman does not teach the following claim requirements: (a) the first and
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

10
second vertical frame members each have an inner surface substantially
flush to the inner surface of the side panel to which the respective vertical
frame member is attached, and (b) the outer surface of the first and second
vertical frame members extends laterally outward of the outer surface of the
side panel to which the respective vertical frame member is attached. Final
Act. 10.
The Examiner relies on Chan as teaching first and second vertical
frame members (side rails 5) and side panels (side panels 7) satisfying
limitations (a) and (b). Final Act. 10 (citing Chan Fig. 7a). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the first and second
vertical frame members of Castro/Chapman in view of Chan to include
limitations (a) and (b) “to provide more interior volume at the entrance of
the cabinet, provide a flush surface to mount shelves, hinges, drawer rails
etc[.], and enhance the appearance of the vertical frame members and to give
an appearance that the vertical members are legs.” Id. at 10–11.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that Castro fails to
disclose a face frame with two vertical members, a top rail, and a bottom
rail. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant contends that face frame 14 of Castro
necessarily includes these members or it would not be a face frame, and also,
Castro describes how the vertical and horizontal members are affixed to the
cabinet box. Id. n.5 (citing Castro ¶ 5).
We agree with Appellant. Figures 7 and 9 of Castro show a face
frame 14. Paragraph 5 of Castro describes attachment of face frame 14 to
cabinet 10. Further, Figure 16 of Castro depicts face frame 74 including
opposed vertical and horizontal members. Paragraph 52 of Castro describes
that face frame 74 is attached along four edges.
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

11
Appellant also contends that, in contrast to Castro, Chapman is not
directed to a face framed cabinet, but “discloses a full skeletal framed
cabinet where frame members extend along every edge.” Appeal Br. 18.
Claim 1, in contrast, requires that “there is an absence of any frame member
extending along substantially the full depth of the panel assembly.” Id. at
22. Appellant explains that this limitation is recited “to differentiate the
panel assembly from cabinets that have skeletal frames with frame members
extending along each edge of the panel assembly.” Id. at 5. We agree with
Appellant that Chapman does not meet this claim limitation. Appellant
contends that, as Chapman is not a face framed cabinet, one of ordinary skill
in the art would not rely on Chapman to modify Castro’s face frame. Reply
Br. 10–11. In support, Appellant cites the Bader Declaration for its
disclosure of multiple examples of face framed cabinets. Id. at 11–13.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not provide an
adequate reason to modify Castro in view of Chapman. The Examiner
reasons that the modification would “securely and firmly hold the
components of the cabinet together and provide a stable frame work to
install doors and other hardware.” Final Act. 10. However, Castro’s cabinet
assembly already includes a face frame having vertical and horizontal frame
members. The Examiner does not explain why the face frame would not
already be able to securely and firmly hold the cabinet components together
and provide a stable frame work to install doors and other hardware.
As to the Examiner’s reliance on Chan “to enhance the appearance of
the vertical frame members and to give an appearance that the vertical
members are legs,” we agree with Appellant that this reasoning is inadequate
to support the proposed modification. Appeal Br. 20. For example, it is not
Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

12
apparent why one of ordinary skill in the art would desire to modify Castro’s
face frame such that the vertical frame member have the appearance of legs,
as the vertical frame members do not appear to provide any leg function in
the Castro’s cabinet assembly.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 4 and 10 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Castro,
Chapman, and Chan.
As the Examiner’s findings and reasoning for claim 11 are
substantially the same as for claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claim
11 and dependent claim 13 as unpatentable over Castro, Chapman, and Chan
for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.

Claim 12 over Castro, Chapman, Chan, and Camper
The Examiner’s additional reliance on Camper in rejecting claim 12
does not cure the deficiency in the rejection of parent claim 11 over Castro,
Chapman, and Chan. Final Act. 11–12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Castro, Chapman, Chan, and
Camper for the same reasons as claim 11.

Appeal 2019-006637
Application 15/464,151

13
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed

10 112, second
paragraph
10
1, 4, 10 103(a) Mitchell,
Bradbury, Chan
1, 4, 10
2, 3 103(a) Mitchell,
Bradbury, Chan,
Markley
2, 3
1, 4, 10, 11,
13
103(a) Castro, Chapman,
Chan
1, 4, 10, 11,
13
12 103(a) Castro, Chapman,
Chan, Camper
12
Overall
Outcome
10 1–4, 11–13

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART