Ex Parte Miersen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201713761350 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/761,350 02/07/2013 ROGER C. MIERSEN SUB-00592-US-NP 3482 173 7590 02/23/2017 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 EXAMINER DOYLE, RYAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2017 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROGER C. MIERSEN, THOMAS E. GOSE, and JAMES H. JENKINS Appeal 2015-003804 Application 13/761,350 Technology Center 3600 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—3, 8—16, and 18—23 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lin (US 5,581,946, iss. Dec. 10, 1996) and Hilliker (US 3,070,852, iss. Jan. 1, 1963).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 4—7 and 17, but maintains an objection to these claims as depending from a rejected base claim. Advisory Action Aug. 14, 2014; Appeal Br. 3, Ans. 2. Appeal 2015-003804 Application 13/761,350 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to refrigerators with French-style doors. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added in italics, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A refrigerator comprising: a cabinet shell including a first compartment and a second compartment, each of said first and second compartments including a respective opening for receiving items to be refrigerated; first and second French-style doors pivotally mounted to the cabinet shell about the opening of the first compartment at laterally spaced locations, each of said first and second doors including an inner side wall portion, wherein the inner side wall portions of the first and second doors define a space between the doors when the doors are in a closed configuration; first and second gaskets arranged between the first and second doors and the cabinet shell for sealing perimeter portions of the opening of the first compartment; and a mullion seal assembly including: a first seal subassembly provided on the inner side wall portion of the first door, said first seal subassembly including a first sealing pad extending along and biased for linear movement away from the inner side wall portion of the first door; and a second seal subassembly provided on the inner side wall portion of the second door, said second seal subassembly including a second sealing pad extending along and being biased for angular movement away from the inner side wall portion of the second door wherein, upon closing the first and second doors, the first and second sealing pads are biased into engagement to create a seal along the inner side wall portions of the first and second doors. 2 Appeal 2015-003804 Application 13/761,350 OPINION Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Lin discloses all of the elements of claim 1 except for the features of a refrigerator compartment, for which the Examiner relies on Hilliker. Final Action 3^4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Lin’s door seal device in Hilliker’s refrigerator. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to provide a stronger mechanical seal. Id. Appellants assign error to the Examiner’s finding that Lin satisfies the limitation of claim 1 directed to a second sealing pad being “biased for angular movement” away from the inner side wall portion of the second door. Appeal Br. 7. We agree with Appellants. Lin is directed to a door sealing mechanism. Lin, Abstract. Lin discloses a number of embodiments that exhibit biasing means featuring spiral spring elements on both sides of a joint where a swing door engages either: (1) a doorjamb; or (2) another door such as in a French-style door arrangement. See Lin, Figs. 9, 12; col. 6,11. 1—55. Figure 12 of Lin is reproduced below. 20 10 3 Appeal 2015-003804 Application 13/761,350 Figure 12 of Lin depicts a double-door (or French-door) configuration. As explained in more detail in connection with Figure 9, Lin describes the illustrated spring elements, 18 and 305, as “spiral springs.” Lin, Fig 9, col. 6,11. 16—17. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a spiral spring member applies biasing in a linear, not an angular, direction. The Examiner appears to concede as much, but nevertheless, takes the position that buffering members 17 and 31 indicate that some slight angular displacement could accompany the linear displacement when the door is open or closed. Ans. 5; See Fig 9. While this may be true, we do not agree that the claim language should be construed to read on Lin. When subjected to lateral forces, it is not uncommon for linear operating elements to experience small amounts of non-linear, lateral deflection or “play.” However, in our opinion, such minor lateral deflection or play is not encompassed by the language in claim 1 directed to being “biased for angular movement.” The telling feature here is that the sealing pad and spiral spring assemblies depicted in Figures 9 and 12 of Lin are almost identical and are arranged in linear, axial alignment when the doors are closed. Under the circumstances, it is incongruent to construe one sealing pad and its accompanying spiral spring member as being biased for linear movement and the nearly identical, opposing, axially-aligned, sealing pad and accompanying spiral spring member as being biased for angular movement. The Examiner errs in finding that Lin’s second sealing pad is biased for angular movement. In view of this error, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. 4 Appeal 2015-003804 Application 13/761,350 Claims 2, 3, 8—16, and 18—23 Claims 2, 3, and 8—13 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims App. Claim 14 is an independent claim. Id. Claims 16 and 18—23 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 14. Id. The Examiner’s erroneous finding of fact that Lin discloses a second sealing pad that is biased for angular movement infects the rejection of each of these claims. Consequently, for essentially the same reasons explained above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—3, 8—16, and 18—23 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation