BSH HAUSGERAETE GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

15363029 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
15/363,029 11/29/2016 DOGAN KILINC BSH-2016P03521 8641
24131 7590 07/01/2020
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
SULLENS, TAVIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOGAN KILINC, KORHAN ORHAN, and TOLGA YEGIN

Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 13–15, and 19–26.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
assignee “BSH Hausgeraete GmbH of Muenchen, Germany.” Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 2–12 and 16–18 are cancelled. See Advisory Act. (mailed Dec. 26,
2018); Amendment 2–3 (filed Nov. 21, 2018).
Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 20, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A home appliance device, comprising:
a machine compartment having at least one wall section, the wall
section having a slot formed therein;
a compressor which is arrangeable inside the machine
compartment; and
a fixation unit for removably mounting the compressor to the
wall section the fixation unit having a rail attached to the
compressor, the rail having a hook, the hook configured for being
received in the slot and displaceable in a longitudinal direction
of the rail into a mounted position engaged with an edge of the
slot for removably securing the rail to the wall section.

Rejections
The Examiner has maintained the following rejections, which we have
presented below in an order different than presented in the Final Office
Action.3
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Stupnik et al. (US 2011/0114818 A1, pub. May 19, 2011)
(hereinafter “Stupnik”).
Claims 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stupnik and LaRocca (US 3,866,867, iss. Feb. 18, 1975).

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 14, 16, 19, 23, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Stupnik. Ans. 11; see also Final Act. 3–4, 6.
Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

3

Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by LaRocca.
Claims 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by LaRocca.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over LaRocca and Stupnik.

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 13–15 and 19
Anticipation based on Stupnik
The Examiner finds that Stupnik discloses “a fixation unit for
removably mounting the compressor to the wall section the fixation unit
having a rail attached to the compressor, the rail having a hook,” as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 5. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Stupnik
discloses a “fixation unit having a rail attached to the compressor (see at
least Annotated Figure 9, below: rail indicated by flag #1), the rail having a
hook (see at least Annotated Figure 9, below: hook indicated by flag #2).”
Id. The Examiner’s annotated version of Stupnik’s Figure 9 is shown below:

Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

4

Id. at 6. The annotated version of Stupnik’s Figure 9 shows flag #1 pointing
to reference number 23 or an area near reference number 23 and flag #2
pointing to reference number 6. Stupnik’s reference number 6 is identified
as the foot section of connection element 3. Stupnik ¶ 74. Therefore, the
Examiner finds that connection element 3’s foot section 6 corresponds with
the claimed “hook.” However, the depiction of flag #1 is not as clear as
flag #2. Stupnik’s reference number 23 refers to the retaining lip of carrier
element 1. Id. ¶ 103. It appears that the Examiner finds carrier element 1’s
retaining lip 23 or the area near retaining lip 23, which could be shaft
section 5 and/or spacer section 5a (id. ¶ 92), corresponds with the claimed
“rail.” Consequently, we are uncertain what structure or structures the
Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed “rail.”
The Examiner also finds that Stupnik discloses “the hook configured
for being received in the slot and displaceable in a longitudinal direction of
the rail into a mounted position engaged with an edge of the slot for
removably securing the rail to the wall section,” as recited in claim 1,
because “the hook engages with [carrier element 1’s retaining lip] #23.”
Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner also finds that Stupnik’s “two slots
formed on support element #1 on either side of each directional arrow #19”
corresponds with the claimed “slot.” Id. (citing Stupnik Figs. 7–10). These
two findings make it unclear which structure or structures correspond to the
claimed “slot.” The Examiner’s position is that the findings are consistent
because “one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a lip is
an edge at the intersection of the two slots.” Ans. 13. However, we are
unclear of the basis on which the Examiner supports this position.
Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

5

In response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the Appellant’s
arguments demonstrate confusion as to how the Examiner applies Stupnik’s
disclosure to the subject matter of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–13. We share
the Appellant’s confusion. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 15.

Obviousness based on Stupnik in view of LaRocca
The Examiner fails to rely on LaRocca in any manner which would
remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as discussed
above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 13, 14, and 19.

Independent Claim 20 and Dependent Claim 21
Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that “bent-over” in “the wall section having
a bent-over edge with a hole formed therein,” as recited in claim 20, is
indefinite. Final Act. 4. It is the Examiner’s position that “[i]t is unclear
from where to where ‘bent-over’ is measured.” Id. To overcome the
rejection, the Examiner suggests the Applicant (Appellant) include a
reference point to specify the surface that the edge is bent-over as well as a
direction in which the edge is bent. Ans. 12. For the same reason, the
Examiner determines that “bent over” in the phrase, “is defined by a bent
over portion of the rail,” as recited in claim 21, is indefinite. Final Act. 4.
The Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the Specification, would understand the meaning of “bent-over” and
that the meaning is broad and not indefinite. Appeal Br. 8. In support of
Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

6

this argument the Appellant cites to Figure 4, which shows fixation element
58 arranged at a bent-over portion of wall section 12 and fixation element 56
arranged at a bent-over portion of support element 54 (e.g., rail). Spec. 17:4,
21:9–10, 26–27. We determine that the Appellant has the better position.
Notably, the Examiner determines “Figure 4 does not clarify what is
included or excluded by ‘bent-over.’ Are multiple bends required? Is a
single bend required?” Ans. 11. The Examiner’s concern is directed to a
matter of breadth, not indefiniteness. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788
(CCPA 1970). Although Figure 4 shows wall section 12 and rail 54 bent
more than once near where fixation elements 58 and 56 are arranged,
respectively, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term
“bent-over” as it pertains to an “edge” or a “portion of the rail” does not
require a material to be bent more than once.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20 as indefinite.
With regard to the term “bent over” in claim 21, we understand the
use of a hyphen between “bent” and “over” as an alternative spelling to
“bent over.” Therefore, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 21 as indefinite.

Anticipation based on LaRocca
Claim 20’s home appliance device includes “a machine compartment
having at least one wall section.” Appeal Br. 23, Claims App. The
Examiner finds LaRocca’s mounting pad 16 corresponds to the claimed “at
least one wall section.” Final Act. 6. The Appellant argues that this finding
Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

7

is in error. Appeal Br. 14–16. We determine that the Appellant has the
better position.
The Examiner’s position is that a “‘wall section’ is broader than
‘wall’” and a “wall section is not required to form part of the machine
compartment, it merely needs to be present.” Ans. 13–14. This position
primarily explains what a wall section is not, rather than what a wall section
is, and why the claimed “wall section” reads on LaRocca’s mounting pad 16.
Although the Specification does not explicitly define the term “wall
section,” the Specification does provide one of ordinary skill in the art
guidance as to its meaning. See Spec 3:5–23. More specifically, the
Specification instructs that the term “wall section” may refer to a base plate
(i.e., bottom wall) of a machine compartment as well as a front wall, a rear
wall, two lateral walls, and a top wall section. See id. Additionally, we note
that the term “wall” is defined as “a material layer enclosing space,” for
example “the wall of a container.” Wall Definition 5, MERRIAM-
WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wall (last
visited June 26, 2019). A section of “a material layer enclosing space”
appears consistent with the Specification’s use of the term “wall section,”
but does not correspond to LaRocca’s mounting pad 16, which does not
enclose a space. See LaRocca Figs. 1–2.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20 and dependent claim 21.

Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

8

Independent Claim 22 and Dependent Claims 23–26
Anticipation based on LaRocca
Claim 22’s home appliance device includes a damper and “an
evaporation tray having a tubular wall projecting from a base surface thereof
for defining a recess, the recess receiving the damper therein.” Appeal
Br. 24–25, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that LaRocca’s compressor flanges 76, 78
correspond to the claimed “damper,” mounting pad 16 corresponds to the
claimed “evaporation tray,” and the vertical and outer portion of tubular
sleeve’s 36, 38, 40, and 42 corresponds to the claimed “recess.” See Final
Act. 8; Ans. 14–15. According to the Examiner, “sleeve #36 forms the
vertical portion of the recess, and the washer #80/bolt head #68 forms the
horizontal overhang of the recess.” Ans. 15.
The Appellant argues that this finding is in error at least because the
Examiner misinterprets the limitation of claim 22 as recited above. See
Appeal Br. 18–20. We determine that the Appellant has the better position.
The Examiner’s finding is based on the notion that claim 22 only
requires the “tubular wall” to partly define the “recess.” We fail to
understand how the Examiner would reach this construction of the claim.
The Specification guides one of ordinary skill in the art that a recess defined
by a tubular wall projecting from a base surface refers to a hollow cylinder,
i.e., an area within the tubular wall. See, e.g., Spec. 23:5–11, Figs. 4, 5b.
The construction implied by the Examiner’s application of LaRocca is one in
which the claimed recess not only includes space outside of the tubular wall,
but also one in which the tubular wall is just a part of the structure that helps
create the recess. We cannot agree with the Examiner that this construction
Appeal 2019-006940
Application 15/363,029

9

is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation, “an
evaporation tray having a tubular wall projecting from a base surface thereof
for defining a recess, the recess receiving the damper therein.” Therefore,
we determine that the Examiner’s finding that the vertical and outer portion
of tubular sleeve’s 36, 38, 40, and 42 corresponds to the claimed “recess” is
in error.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20 and dependent claims 25 and 26.

Obviousness based on LaRocca in view of Stupnik
The Examiner fails to rely on Stupnik in any manner which would
remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 as discussed
above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 23 and 24.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 15 102(a)(1) Stupnik

1, 15
13, 14, 19 103 Stupnik, LaRocca 13, 14, 19
20, 21 112(b) Indefinite 20, 21
20, 21 102(a)(1) LaRocca 20, 21
22, 25, 26 102(a)(1) LaRocca 22, 25, 26
23, 24 103 LaRocca, Stupnik 23, 24
Overall
Outcome
1, 13–15,
19–26

REVERSED