Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12787442 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121787,442 05/26/2010
26171 7590 04/04/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (DC)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jun Hee KIM
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.
19819-0304001/0PPAZ-2009- 4581
EXAMINER
GALLEGO, ANDRES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN HEE KIM, KI HONG PARK, MIN HUN KIM, and
SANG HU PARK
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Jun Hee Kim et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-3,
8, 9, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over Oh '208 (US 2006/0087208 Al; pub.
Apr. 27, 2006) and Oh '564 (US 2006/0022564 Al; pub. Feb. 2, 2006); (2)
claims 5, 6, and 10-12 as unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Allred
1 The Examiner also presents objections to the drawings and Specification.
Final Act. 2-3 (mailed Jan. 10, 2013). An objection is a petitionable matter
and not an appealable matter and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967).
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
(US 3,647,271; iss. Mar. 7, 1972); (3) claim 13 as unpatentable over Oh
'208, Oh '564, and Gutner (US 3,694,049; iss. Sept. 26, 1972); (4) claims 16
and 17 as unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Miller (US 4,285,560;
iss. Aug. 25, 1981); (5) claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh
'564, and Yu (US 2009/0243448 Al; pub. Oct. 1, 2009); and (6) claim 21 as
unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, Yu, and Lyvers (US 7,028,503 B2; iss.
Apr. 18, 2006). Claims 4, 7, 14, 22, and 23 has been cancelled. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to a refrigerator, more
particularly, to a refrigerator capable of preventing rightward/leftward
shaking of a door configured to sliding-move to open and close a storage
chamber." Spec. para. 1; Figs. 2-5. Claims 1 and 8 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet comprising a storage chamber;
a door configured to open and close the storage
chamber by sliding;
rail members provided in both inner sidewalls of the
storage chamber to guide motion of the door, the rail
members connected with both sides of the door,
2 "The Examiner notes that the [112 written description] rejection of claims
22 and 23 is withdrawn, as claims 22 and 23 have been cancelled by
[Appellants] in the after-final amendment to the claim listing submitted June
11, 2013 (the same day as the appeal brief). The after-final amendment filed
June 11, 2013 is entered. Claims 22-23 are canceled on not part of the instant
appeal." Ans. 2 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 3--4.
2
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
respectively, and the rail members being configured to
slide with the door;
a guide member coupled to the door to reduce shaking
of the door in a predetermined direction different from a
direction of the door opening, the guide member being
located at a central portion of a bottom surface of the
storage chamber and being configured to slide with the
door; and
a supporting member provided in the central portion
of the bottom surface of the storage chamber, and
configured to support both side surfaces of the guide
member to reduce shaking of the guide member in
rightward and leftward directions.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Oh '208 and Oh '564
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 15, and 18
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "the guide member being
located at a central portion of a bottom surface of the storage chamber" and
"a supporting member provided in the central portion of the bottom surface
of the storage chamber." Br. 7, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Oh
'208 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except Oh '208 "does not
disclose the guide member being located at a central portion of a bottom
surface of the storage chamber and the supporting member provided in the
central portion of the bottom surface of the storage chamber." Final Act. 5-
6. The Examiner finds:
[Oh '564] teaches a guide member (rails 32b, 32c) being
located at a central portion of a bottom surface (defined by the
bottom surface of the cooling chamber 18) of a storage
chamber (defined by the upper cooling chamber 14 and lower
cooling chamber 18), and a supporting member (rail 32a)
provided in the central portion of the bottom surface of the
storage chamber as shown in Figures 3, 4, and 6.
3
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
Id.
Br. 4.
to modify the refrigerator of [Oh '208] by having the guide and
supporting member located at a central portion of a bottom
surface of a storage chamber as taught by [Oh '564], since it has
been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only
routine skill in the art.
Appellants contend:
[A]s shown in Figs. 5 and 6 of [Oh '564], the rails 32a, 32b, and
32c of [Oh '564] are positioned at left and right sides of the
bottom surface of the freezing chamber. Thus, [Oh '564] would
not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to position a guide
member and supporting member at a central portion of a bottom
surface of the storage chamber.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds that "the
claims do not structurally specify what constitutes the parameters defining
the central portion of a bottom surface, and does not distinguish from the
central portion of the prior art." Ans. 3.
When claim terminology is construed in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Further, "the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to
the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir 1996)).
4
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
Figures 2 and 3 of Appellants' disclosure illustrate "the guide member
being located at a central portion of a bottom surface of the storage
chamber" and "a supporting member provided in the central portion of the
bottom surface of the storage chamber." See Br. 1-2. The term "central"3
modifies the term "portion," in that the "portion" is situated at, in, or near
the center of something. In other words, in this case, a person of ordinary
skill in the art when interpreting the claimed term "central portion" in light
of Appellants' Figures 2 and 3 would understand that the guide member and
the supporting member are each located/provided "at, in, or near the center"
of the bottom surface of the storage chamber.
Oh '564 discloses "a pair of guide rails 32" positioned at left and right
sides of the bottom surface of freezing chamber 18. See Oh '564, para. 38
(emphasis omitted), Figs. 3, 5, 6; see also Final Act. 6; Br. 4; compare
Figure 6 of the subject invention illustrating an alternate embodiment
including a pair of guide members 200/supporting members 300 positioned
at left and right sides of the bottom surface 22 of the storage (freezing)
chamber 21. See Spec. paras. 65, 66. We agree with Appellants that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to modify Oh '208 to
have "[the] guide member and supporting member located/provided at ~
central portion of a bottom surface of the storage chamber" in view of
Figures 3, 5, and 6 of Oh '564. See Br. 4; see In re Cortright, 165 F.3d
1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Although the PTO must give claims their
3 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "central," consistent with
Figures 2 and 3 of Appellants' disclosure, is: "3 a : situated at, in, or near the
center." Merriam Webster's Dictionary, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/central (last visited Mar. 24, 2016).
5
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with
the one that those skilled in the art would reach.").
Independent claim 8 includes similar limitations as discussed for
claim 1. See Br. 8, Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same
unsupported findings for claim 8 as discussed above in claim 1. See Final
Act. 4--8. Thus, the Examiner's findings with respect to Oh '208 and Oh
'5 64 are deficient for claim 8 as well.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 and their respective
dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over Oh '208 and Oh
'564.
Obviousness over Oh '208, Oh '564, and any of Allred,
Gutner, or Miller
Claims 5, 6, 10-13, 16, and 17
The Examiner's rejections of(l) claims 5; 6; and 10-12 as
unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Allred; (2) claim 13 as
unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Gutner; and (3) claims 16 and 17
as unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Miller suffer from the same
deficiency discussed above in Oh '208 and Oh '564. See Final Act. 8-14.
The Examiner does not rely on Allred, Gutner, or Miller to remedy the
deficiency. For similar reasons as those set forth supra, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejections of (I) claims 5, 6, and 10-12 as unpatentable over
Oh '208, Oh '564, and Allred; (2) claim 13 as unpatentable over Oh '208,
Oh '564, and Gutner; and (3) claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Oh
'208, Oh '564, and Miller.
6
Appeal2014-003044
Application 12/787 ,442
Obviousness over Oh ;208, Oh ;564, and Yu or
Oh '208, Oh '564, Yu, and Lyvers
Claims 19-21
The Examiner's rejections of ( 1) claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable
over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Yu; and (2) claim 21 as unpatentable over Oh
'208, Oh '564, Yu, and Lyvers suffer from the same deficiency discussed
above in Oh '208 and Oh '564. See Final Act. 14--16. The Examiner does
not rely on Yu or Lyvers to remedy the deficiency. For similar reasons as
those set forth supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of ( 1)
claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, and Yu; and (2)
claim 21 as unpatentable over Oh '208, Oh '564, Yu, and Lyvers.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5, 6,
8-13, and 15-21.
REVERSED
7