Ex Parte Ertl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

14406229 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
14/406,229 12/08/2014 Christian Ertl 2012P02118WOUS 8093
46726 7590 10/25/2017
RS»H Home. Annlianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
WILKENS, JANET MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2017 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN ERTL, MARKUS HOPFL, MARKUS KONRAD,
WALTER LIPPERT, JOCHEN MULLER, and CHRISTOPH THIEL
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 6—22. App. Br. 4. Claims 1—5 are
canceled. App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies BSH Hausgerate GmbH as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 12, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed July 12, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 12,
2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed Nov. 20, 2015, “Final Act.”), and
the Specification (filed Dec. 8, 2014, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a domestic appliance including a door configured
to pivot about a horizontal axis of rotation so as to assume a substantially
vertical position when closed to thereby close a treatment chamber. See
Abstract.
INVENTION
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
independent Claim 6, the sole independent claim, which is reproduced below
with some formatting added:
6. A domestic appliance, comprising:
a door configured to pivot about a horizontal axis of
rotation so as to assume a substantially vertical position when
closed to thereby close a treatment chamber, said axis of
rotation being arranged behind a center of gravity of the door in
a depthwise direction of the domestic appliance;
a locking arrangement configured to lock the door when
closed, the door being configured to move towards an open
position independent of an external force when the locking
arrangement is disengaged from the door, and
a door weight compensation system configured to damp
movement of the door towards an opened position such that the
door assumes a partially opened position when the locking
arrangement is disengaged from the door,
wherein movement of the door towards the open position
occurs substantially as a result of a weight-induced force
exerted by the door.
2
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Mercer
Dalsing
Tynes et al.
Keskin et al.
US 3,841,675
US 2010/0051067 Al
Oct. 15, 1974
Mar. 4, 2010
Jan. 4, 2011
Sept. 8,2011
US 7,862,132 B2
US 2011/0215691 Al
Claims 6—22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Keskin, Tynes, and Mercer. Final Act. 2-4.
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 6—15 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4—10.
Claims 6-22: Obviousness over Keskin, Tynes, and Mercer
Appellants argue all claims in view of independent Claim 6. See App.
Claim 6 recites, inter alia, “the door being configured to move
towards an open position independent of an external force when the locking
arrangement is disengaged from the door.”
The Examiner finds Keskin teaches a dishwasher with a door having
substantially the features recited in Claim 6. Final Act. 2. The Examiner
finds Tynes teaches a door-weight compensation system which controls the
opening and closing of the door and allows for partially opened positions of
ANALYSIS
Br. 5.
A door configured to move towards an open position.
3
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
the door. Id. (citing Tynes, col. 3,11. 1—4). Additionally, The Examiner
finds Mercer teaches an appliance locking system. Id. at 3 (citing Mercer,
Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the
dishwasher door of Keskin with the door weight compensation system of
Tynes to provide an opening and closing control means and to further “allow
for partially opened positions of the door to allow for air drying” and to
further modify the door with a locking system of Mercer “to help keep the
door in its closed position during use of the appliance.” Id. at 2—3.
Appellants contend the prior art fails to teach a door “configured to
move towards an open position independent of an external force when the
locking arrangement is disengaged from the door,” as recited in Claim 6.
App. Br. 5. Appellants argue the Keskin door “is opened by pulling from
the top downwards” and note that its purpose is to devise “an adjustment
mechanism that balances the weight of the door so that while the door is
being opened it doesn’t fall by its own weight.” Id. at 5—6 (citing Keskin,
Abstract, 19). Appellants further argue Tynes provides a counterbalance
assembly coupled between the door and the body of an appliance “for
facilitating pivoting of the door,” but Tynes does not teach a door that
automatically opens due to its own weight. Id. at 6 (citing Tynes, col. 1,
11. 55-57).
The Examiner’s Answer finds Keskin teaches a door that opens
requiring only its own mass under gravity. Ans. 3 (citing Keskin || 2, 40,
49). The Examiner finds the Tynes (and Dalsing) is “not used for teaching
this feature.” Id.
4
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
Appellants respond that a door would fall open automatically is the
problem explicitly solved by Keskin’s invention. Reply Br. 2 (quoting
Keskin 12, “the door does not fall automatically”).
Keskin is generally directed to balancing the weight of a door of a
household appliance (e.g., a dishwasher) by an adjustment mechanism.
Keskin 11. Keskin discloses it was known that a spring adjustment
mechanism may be used to apply a counterbalancing tensile force in a
direction opposite that of the door opening to balance the weight of the door.
Id. 12. Additionally, if a decorative panel were added to the door, the
spring mechanism would need to be adjusted to account for the added
weight of the panel. Id. 12. Further, Keskin discloses it was known that by
varying (and setting) the fixing point of the spring, an appliance door could
be balanced at any point between the fully opened and fully closed positions.
Id. 13 (citing German Patent Application no. DE 4013571).
Keskin describes a mechanism that allows for adjustment of a spring
mechanism, in a small space, to balance the door weight at a desired spot.
Id. 17. In other words, Keskin provides a mechanism to adjust the door
counterbalancing mechanism to set a desired balance point (i.e., at a
preferred position between fully opened and fully closed) or to otherwise
adjust the mechanism if there were a change with the door, for example, by
adding a decorative panel.
5
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
Figure 4 of Keskin is illustrative and is reproduced below.
[Fig. 0004]
A
Figure 4 of Keskin illustrates a perspective view of the disclosed door
adjustment mechanism. Keskin 120. Keskin describes adjusting (i.e.,
increasing or decreasing) the tension of the spring to balance the weight of
6
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
the door by winding or unwinding a pulling cable (10) about a spool (11).
Id. If 41. The adjustment made be made using a screwdriver to turn
adjustment rod (6), which, in turn, causes the spool (11) to rotate (via the
rotation of endless screw (7) and gearwheel (8)) and adjusts the tension of
the spring (9). Id. 23 42. Once set at the desired balance point, the
tensile adjustment of the spring does not need to change “until readjustment
is made by the user or the maintenance service.” Id. 141.
As the Examiner explains, “Keskin specifically states the effects of
gravity and weight on a horizontally hinged door.” Ans. 2 (referring to
Keskin 12). Thus, absent a counterbalancing mechanism, if the door were
not in a fully closed (i.e., vertical) position, the door would open fully due to
the change in the position of its center of gravity. See Keskin 12. Further,
as the Examiner explains, by unlocking the locking arrangement of the door,
as taught by Mercer, by releasing the connection between the door and the
chamber via a slight pushing, the door of Keskin would begin moving
towards an open position on its own (i.e., due to the change in its center of
gravity) until the point at which the counterbalance of the spring mechanism
has been set. Ans. 3.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants assert the door of Keskin does not move towards an open
position independent of an external force because Keskin states that the door
is pulled open by the handle. App. Br. 5—6 (citing Keskin, 19, Abstract).
The obviousness inquiry “not only permits, but requires,
consideration of common knowledge and common sense.” DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
7
Appeal 2016-007281
Application 14/406,229
Here, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the (unlatched)
door of Keskin would begin to fall open (i.e., move towards an open
position) until the point where the weight of the door is counterbalanced
with the spring mechanism. To open the door to its fully open position,
which is beyond the language of claim 6, external force would be required.
For similar reasons, we also find Appellants’ other arguments unpersuasive
of Examiner error. See App. Br. 7—9. Because we find the combined
teachings of Mercer and Keskin (and Tynes) teach or reasonably suggest a
door configured to move towards an open position independent of an
external force when a locking arrangement is disengaged, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 6—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
8