Ex Parte Schnetzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13124677 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/124,677 04/18/2011 Nikolaus Schnetzer 2008P03779WOUS 8483
46726 7590 05/02/2017
RS»H Home. Annlianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
LA VILLA, MICHAEL EUGENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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 NIKOLAUS SCHNETZER and DIRK SCHUMANN1
Appeal 2015-008007
Application 13/124,677
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16—30, 37, and 38. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgerate GmbH.
2 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated April 18,
2011 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated November 7, 2014 (Final), the
Appeal Brief dated March 17, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer
dated August 27, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated September 2, 2015
(Reply Br.).
Appeal 2015-008007
Application 13/124,677
For the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
and Answer, we AFFIRM. We add the following for emphasis.
The claims are directed to a control element for a household appliance
(see, e.g., claim 16), and a household appliance comprising such a control
element (see, e.g., claim 37). Claim 16 is illustrative:
16. A control element for a household kitchen appliance,
the control element comprising:
a base member made of plastic;
a nickel coating applied to the base member; and
a noble metal coating applied to the nickel coating,
wherein the base member is configured to mount to a
shaft of the household kitchen appliance.
Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner rejects claims 16—18, 21—25, 28, 29, 37, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chase3 in view of Howie4 and rejects
claims 16—30, 37, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fath5 in
view of Chase and Howie.
OPINION
Rejection over Chase in view of Howie
In arguing against the rejection of claims 16—18, 21—25, 28, 29, 37,
and 38 over Chase in view of Howie, Appellants do not argue any claim
apart from the others. Appeal Br. 7—9. We select claim 16 as representative
3 Chase, US 2006/0086620 Al, published Apr. 27, 2006.
4 Howie, Jr., US 4,446,811, issued May 8, 1984.
5 Fath, US 2006/0210813 Al, published Sep. 21, 2006
2
Appeal 2015-008007
Application 13/124,677
to resolve the issue on appeal. The issue is: Have Appellants identified a
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion within the prior art
for applying the coatings of Chase on a control element with a plastic base
member configured to mount to a shaft of a household appliance?
Appellants have not identified such an error.
There is no dispute that, as found by the Examiner, Chase teaches a
plastic base member coated with nickel and further coated with a noble
metal as required by the first three clauses of claim 16. Compare Final 4,
with Appeal Br. 7—9, and Reply Br. 3^4. The resulting plated plastic article
has a decorative relief pattern of the type popular in, for instance, appliances
and household applications. Chase H 1, 2, 8.
The Examiner acknowledges that Chase does not specify that the
plated plastic article is a kitchen appliance control element configured to be
mounted on a shaft. Final 4.
There is no dispute that Howie discloses a control element for a
kitchen appliance with a plastic base member configured for mounting on
the end of a control shaft. Appeal Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 3^4. Howie’s control
element is a knob and skirt assembly mounted on a shaft to control a gas
valve or electrical rheostat on a stove or over or similar appliance. Howie
col. 1,11. 53-61; col. 3,11. 11-19.
Together, as found by the Examiner, the prior art suggests configuring
the plastic base member of Chase to mount to a shaft of a stove or similar
kitchen appliance. Final 4. One would thus obtain a control element of
plated plastic having the decorative relief pattern of Chase that can be used
to control a gas valve or electrical rheostat on a stove or oven or similar
kitchen appliance.
3
Appeal 2015-008007
Application 13/124,677
Appellants contend that they “discovered the advantageous nature of
the application of the claimed structure to a control element of a household
kitchen appliance,” and this discovery “is part of the ‘subject matter as a
whole’ that must be considered when determining obviousness.” Appeal Br.
8, citing Spec. 4—7.
After considering the evidence as a whole, we remain unpersuaded of
a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a reason to apply the coatings
of Chase onto a control element with the plastic base member configured to
mount on a shaft of a stove or oven.
The Specification discloses that “[hjousehold appliances, such as for
example gas cooktops, electric cooktops, ovens, dishwashers or washing
machines frequently have control elements embodied in plastic, whose
surface is, at least in a visible area, coated with metal.” Spec. 12. The
metal coating mimics the look and feel of aluminum or stainless steel. Id.
According to the Specification, nickel is frequently used as the metal
coating, which is ground or brushed to give a desired surface structure. Id.
The Specification explains that “[gjeneric control elements according to the
prior art have the disadvantage, that surfaces made of nickel are not resistant
to many substances occurring within a household, and the nickel surface is
attacked for example by lactic acid, mustard or perspiration from hands,”
and “[tjhere is in addition the risk of dermatological reactions, if an operator
suffers from a contact allergy to nickel.” Spec. 14. The Specification states
that it was “known that these disadvantages are avoided through the
application of a protective lacquer onto the nickel surface.” The object of
Appellants’ invention is to improve resistance to external influences,
4
Appeal 2015-008007
Application 13/124,677
presumably the influences of substances that attack nickel, by coating the
nickel with noble metal. Spec. Tflf 6—7.
Although Appellants disclose a different reason for making the
combination, this does not negate the fact that there is a suggestion within
the prior art for making the combination. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (stating that it is error to look “only to the problem
the patentee was trying to solve”); In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (“the motivation in the prior art to combine the references does
not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.”).
Chase provides a reason for applying the noble coating to a nickel-plated
plastic control element, namely to provide a decorative coating with
delicately textured or patterned finish. Chase 19. That suggestion is
enough to support the rejection for obviousness.
Rejection over Fath in view of Chase and Howie
In the second rejection, i.e., the rejection over Fath in view of Chase
and Howie, the Examiner relies upon Chase and Howie in substantially the
same manner as in the first rejection, but adds Fath for its teaching of
coating a plastic base member to confer a decorative appeal to the coated
objects. Final 5—6. Appellants’ arguments parallel those discussed above.
Because the claims are not argued apart, we select claim 16 as
representative. For the reasons presented by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and Answer, we determine a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of a reason to combine the teachings of the
references to obtain a control element for a kitchen appliance with the
coatings and structure required by claim 16. Appellants have not identified a
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
5
Appeal 2015-008007
Application 13/124,677
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED
6