Ex Parte Kücük et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

13310822 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
13/310,822 12/05/2011 Cengiz Ktictik 2010P02579US 9093
46726 7590 09/19/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
GALLEGO, ANDRES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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 CENGIZ KUCUK, JOHANN SCHABERT, and
WILHELM THIBAUT
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4—25, 28, and 29. Claims 3, 26, and 27 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Appellants disclose and claim a dishwasher (independent claim 1) and
a frame assembly (independent claim 21) having a frame including frame
strips (9), base support (21), and bearing elements (17) supporting the frame
strips (Figs. 1—3). The frame strips (9) have hooks (35, 36) and depth (29)
and height (30) stops. The bearing elements (17) have vertical limbs (25)
with recesses (27, 28) that mate with the depth and height stops (29, 30) to
lock the appliance/dish washer in place and provide structural rigidity. Spec.
2, 7. Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added,
reads as follows:
1. A dishwasher, comprising:
a washing compartment having a front access opening;
a front frame shaped and dimensioned to surround, at
least in part, the front access opening, said front frame being
open on a floor side, and said front frame having frame strips',
bearing elements to support corresponding ones of the
frame strips; and
a base support arranged to support the washing
compartment on a floor, the base support configured to support
the bearing elements, and the bearing elements extending
vertically from the base support,
wherein each of the frame strips of the front frame
comprises at least one hook element structured to connect each
of the frame strips to a corresponding one of the bearing
2
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
elements of the base support at an upper edge of the
corresponding bearing element,
wherein a longitudinal axis of each of the frame strips is
parallel to a longitudinal axis of a corresponding one of the
bearing elements,
wherein a vertical limb of each of the bearing elements
overlaps an end of a corresponding base portion of each of the
frame strips below the upper edge of the corresponding bearing
element when the frame strips are supported on the
bearing elements,
wherein each of the frame strips comprises at least one
height stop to support the front frame on the corresponding
bearing element below the upper edge of the corresponding
bearing element, and
wherein each of the frame strips comprises at least one
depth stop to engage the corresponding bearing element in a
depth direction below the upper edge of the corresponding
bearing element.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—25, 28, and 29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Becker (US 5,613,747; issued
Mar. 25, 1997) and Patstone (US 2009/0078593 Al; published Mar. 26,
2009). Final Act. 2-15.
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8—24; Reply Br. 1—26), the
following two principal issues are presented:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1,2, 4—25, 28, and 29 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Becker and Patstone as
being obvious because:
(1) Patstone is non-analogous to Appellants’ invention recited in
independent claims 1 and 21; and/or
3
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
(2) the combination of Becker and Patstone, and specifically Patstone,
fails to teach or suggest the hook element, height stop, and/or
depth stop recited in independent claims 1 and 21?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2—15) in light
of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8—24; Reply Br. 1—
26) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—7). We agree with
Appellants’ arguments that (1) Patstone is non-analogous to Appellants’
invention recited in independent claims 1 and 21 (App. Br. 12—19); and (2)
Patstone, and, thus, the combination of Becker and Patstone, fails to teach or
suggest the hook element, height stop, and/or depth stop recited in
independent claims 1 and 21 (App. Br. 10—12).
Analogous Art
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein,
647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In reBigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the
same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless of the
problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d
at 1325.
4
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the
prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application. Id. at 1325—27. It is necessary to
apply “common sense’’ in “deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill
would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing
the inventor.” Id. at 1326 (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
As to the “reasonably pertinent” test: A reference is reasonably
pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the
inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it
deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the invention and the
prior art are important in determining whether the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem the invention attempts to solve. If a reference
disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference
relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in
an obviousness rejection. An inventor may well have been motivated to
consider the reference when making his invention. If it is directed to a
different purpose, the inventor would accordingly have had less motivation
or occasion to consider it. Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.
In the instant case, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 12—19) that
Patstone is non-analogous art to Appellants’ invention recited in independent
claims 1 and 21. Specifically, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 13—14)
that Patstone, which pertains to a storage case that can be converted into a
5
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
table (Figs. 1, 2; 11),1 is not in the same field of endeavor as the claims
(e.g., a frame assembly for a dishwasher or household appliance). We also
agree with Appellants (App. Br. 14—19) that Patstone is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. More specifically,
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention pertains to dishwashers and
household appliances that are not frequently assembled and disassembled,
unlike Patstone’s storage case/table that is designed specifically to be
assembled and disassembled frequently in the field (see App. Br. 15).
In view of the foregoing, we agree with Appellants that Patstone is
non-analogous to the subject matter recited in independent claims 1 and 21,
as well as corresponding dependent claims 2, 4—20, 22—25, 28, and 29.
Hook Element, Height Stop, and Depth Stop
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 10—12) that Patstone’s Figure 4c
does not show a hook element that works in cooperation with a height stop
and depth stop, as asserted by the Examiner. And, even if the recited “hook
element” of claims 1 and 21 (see Appellants’ Fig. 1, hook 35 or 36) is read
on Patstone’s bracket 62 (Fig. 4a—c), this arrangement in Patstone would not
be encompassed by claims 1 and 21, because the claims recite the depth and
height stops and a hook element (integral with the frame strip 9 shown in
Appellants’ Fig. 1) as separate elements. The Examiner has not provided
sufficient explanation or rationale to support a finding that Patstone’s
latching slot 63 and/or rubber liner 69 operate as, or constitute, height/depth
stops. In this light, neither of the Examiner’s alternative mappings to2 of
1 More specifically, Patstone is directed towards a medical case for use in
military applications (12).
6
Appeal 2017-003730
Application 13/310,822
Patstone make a prima facie showing that Patsone teaches or suggests the
claim limitations of a hook element, height stop, and depth stop.2 3
In view of the foregoing, we are constrained by the record before us to
find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—25, 28, and 29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Becker and Patstone.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—25, 28, and 29 over the
combination of Becker and Patstone.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—25, 28, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
2 The Examiner’s first mapping to Patstone is that latching slot 63 teaches
the recited “height stop,” and Patstone’s rubber liner 69 teaches on the
recited depth stop (Final Act. 3 4). The Examiner’s second alternative
mapping to Patstone is that rubber liner 69 teaches the recited “depth stop,”
and Patstones latching slot 63 teaches the recited “height stop” (Final Act.
9—10). In both mappings, the Examiner determines that Patstone’s Figure 4c
teaches a hook element as recited in the claims (Final Act. 3,9).
3 Our reviewing court guides “when a rejection is so uninformative that it
prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds
for rejection” a prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection
violates the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132. Chester v. Miller,
906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
7