Ex Parte Dysinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2013

11998088 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID DYSINGER, DONALD HENDRICKS, and
TIMOTHY KOLODY
____________________

Appeal 2011-008396
Application 11/998,088
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008396
Application 11/998,088
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejections of claims
1, 2, 8, 9, 17 and 18. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an appliance base for an appliance. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An appliance base for an appliance, the appliance base
comprising:
a skeletal outer frame structure including:
a "U"-base rail member having a first lateral end portion,
a second lateral end portion, and a base rail body extending
therebetween,
a first continuous "U"-side rail extending outwardly from
the first lateral end portion of the "U"-base rail member at a
generally right angle therewith, and a second continuous "U"-
side rail extending outwardly from the second lateral end
portion of the "U"-base rail member at a generally right angle
therewith, the outer frame structure delimiting four corners and
at least one support area intermediate the "U"-base rail member
and the "U"-side rails; and
an inner frame structure including:
an index element disposed in substantially a center of the
at least one support area;
a plurality of diagonally extending and continuous
support members with each diagonal support member extending
inwardly from a corner of the outer frame structure and fixed to
the index element and
a longitudinal cross member extending between diagonal
cross members and disposed on an opposite side of the index
element from the "U"-base rail member, the appliance base for
supporting an appliance during at least one of a manufacturing
of the appliance and a use of the appliance.

Appeal 2011-008396
Application 11/998,088
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Grieser et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,878,984 iss. Mar. 9, 1999). Ans. 3.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grieser. Ans. 6.

OPINION
The claims are argued as a group, based on limitations appearing in
claims 1 and 8. The Examiner found that Grieser discloses each and every
element of claims 1 and 8. Ans. 4-5. Appellants raise three points of
contention.
First, Appellants argue that Grieser’s fastening means wall 44 (see
Figs. 6, 9), interpreted as the recited “index element” is not in “substantially
a center” of the support area. App. Br. 7. We disagree with Appellants. The
term “substantially” is a broad term and allows for some deviation from the
center. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 164-65 (CCPA 1960). How much
deviation must be judged in light of the Specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc.
v. Indus. Crating & Pkg., Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2173.05(b)(II)(D) (8th Ed., Rev.
9, Aug. 2012). Nothing in the Specification expressly defines “substantially”
or specifies exactly how central the index element must be. The purpose of
that element is “to assist in facilitating the stacking of a plurality of
appliance bases.” Spec. 5:15-16. But, it is apparent that they also lend
support to the load. Spec. 6:2-3 (“index rings 28, 42 are conical for enhanced
strength”). Thus, the Examiner, determining that Grieser’s fastening means
wall 44 is near the center of the load support area and facilitates stabilizing
Appeal 2011-008396
Application 11/998,088
4
the load (Ans. 7), reasonably concluded that it is in “substantially the center”
of the load support area.
Appellants next argue that the support members 130, 132, 136, 140 of
Grieser, interpreted by the Examiner as the recited “diagonally extending
and continuous support members,” do not extend from “a corner.” App. Br.
8. The claim, however, does not define a corner to be an exact point
bisecting the sidewalls, nor does the claim require that the diagonal support
members bisect the corners. The Examiner reasonably interpreted the entire
rounded areas between the sidewalls as “corner[s]” and reasonably found
that since Grieser’s support members extend from the edges of these areas
they extend from the corners. Appellants have not advanced any argument to
demonstrate why these interpretations are unreasonable in light of the
Specification. It is well settled that limitations from the Specification or
Drawings are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184-85 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Lastly, Appellants point out that Grieser’s support members 128, 134,
and 136 extend from the midpoints of Grieser’s sidewalls. App. Br. 8. The
claim, however, does not require each support member to be a diagonal
support member. Rather, it only requires that each diagonal support member
extend from a corner. Since Grieser’s support members 128, 134, and 136
extend parallel and perpendicular to the sidewalls, they are reasonably
interpreted as non-diagonal support members and therefore need not extend
from a corner. The claim, being open ended, does not preclude the presence
of such additional elements.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2011-008396
Application 11/998,088
5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh