13108173 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

Ex Parte Stegerwald

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 2016

13108173 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/108,173 05/16/2011 46726 7590 10/31/2016 BSH Home Appliances Corporation 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gerhard Stegerwald 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. 2010P04486US 9051 EXAMINER RO HRH OFF, DANIEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2016 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): 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 GERHARD STEGERWALD Appeal2014-005048 Application 13/108, 173 1 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and FREDERCK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Gerhard Stegerwald (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 16-34, 36, and 45-52. 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is BSH Home Appliances Corporation. Appeal Br. 3 (filed Aug. 5, 2013). 2 Claims 4, 7, 15, and 35 are canceled, and claims 37--44 are withdrawn. See Final Act. 2 (transmitted Mar. 14, 2013). Appeal2014-005048 Application 13/108, 173 We REVERSE. SUMMARY OF DECISION INVENTION Appellant's invention relates to "a household appliance or a work top including an attachment device for a deployable or adjustable laundry hanger device." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 34, 36, and 52 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A domestic household laundry appliance comprising: a housing having a door for accessing an interior of the housing; and an attachment device integrally formed in a planar panel surface of one of the housing and a worktop on the housing, the attachment device being flush with the planar panel surface of the one of the housing and the worktop; and a laundry hanging device secured in and supported by the attachment device, the laundry hanging device being one of pivotable and rotatable about the attachment device. REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 24--29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 45--48, and 51under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borah (US 2,230,793, iss. Feb. 4, 1941) and McKelvey (US 337,604, iss. Mar. 9, 1886). II. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Thiot (US 4,094,414, iss. June 13, 1978). 2 Appeal2014-005048 Application 13/108, 173 III. The Examiner rejected claims 22, 23, 32, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Helot (US 2010/0064543 Al, pub. Mar. 18, 2010). IV. The Examiner rejected claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Furman (US 5,899,167, iss. May 4, 1999). V. The Examiner rejected claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Sabounjian (US 2007/0221598 Al, pub. Sept. 27, 2007). ANALYSIS Rejection I Each of independent claims 1, 34, and 36, requires inter alia, an attachment device that is "integrally formed" in and "flush" with a planar panel surface, and a hanging device "being one of pivotable and rotatable about the attachment device." See Appeal Br. 27, 32, and 33 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Borah discloses most of the limitations of independent claims 1, 34, and 36, but fails to disclose the limitations recited above. See Final Act. 3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that "McKelvey teaches an attachment device ( c & c') integrally formed in a planar panel surface (A) ... the attachment device being flush with the planar panel surface of the housing; and a laundry hanging device ( d) being one of pivotable and rotatable about the attachment device." Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art "to replace the attachment device and laundry hanging device of Borah 3 Appeal2014-005048 Application 13/108, 173 with the attachment device and laundry hanging device of McKelvey, because this arrangement would have replaced one known attachment device and laundry hanging device with another known attachment device and laundry hanging device." Id. "[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In this case, the Examiner's substitution of McKelvey's sockets c, c' for Borah's openings in walls 11, 12 would not have yielded a predictable result, as the Examiner asserts. Borah's openings for accommodating tubular hanging devices 28, 31 are made in planar walls 11, 12, whereas McKelvey's sockets c, c' for accommodating balls ( e) of laundry hanging rods ( d) are made in casting A. Compare Borah, Fig. 4, with McKelvey, Fig. 1. Hence, we agree with Appellant that in contrast to Borah's openings, which are made in a single planar surface, i.e., either of walls 11, 12, McKelvey's sockets c, c' are made in two planar surfaces, i.e., top and side planes of casting A. See Appeal Br. 15-16; see also McKelvey, Figs. 2, 4, and 5. As McKelvey's sockets c, c' require top and side planes, Appellant is correct in that the Examiner's rejection does not adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would provide McKelvey's sockets c, c' in Borah's planar walls 11, 12 in order to accommodate McKelvey's laundry hanging device ( d, e ). See Appeal Br. 16. As such, we do not agree with the Examiner's position that "replacing the attachment device of Borah with the attachment device of McKelvey" is "[a] simple substitution of one type of 4 Appeal2014-005048 Application 13/108, 173 opening for another to accommodate the end of the laundry hanging device of McKelvey." Ans. 3. The Examiner's conclusion that the substitution of McKelvey's sockets c, c' for Borah's openings in walls 11, 12 would have merely provided an alternate attachment and laundry-hanging device says essentially that the substitution would have been obvious merely because McKelvey's sockets c, c' were known to accommodate laundry-hanging devices (d, e). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's reasoning to replace the attachment device and laundry-hanging device of Borah with the attachment device and laundry-hanging device of McKelvey lacks rational underpinnings. See Appeal Br. 16. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 24--29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 45--48, and 51 as unpatentable over Borah and McKelvey. Rejections 11-V Independent claim 52, similar to claim 1, requires an attachment device that is "integrally formed" in and "flush" with a planar panel surface, and a hanging device pivotable and rotatable about the attachment device. See Appeal Br. 34--35 (Claims App.). As do claims 18, 22, 23, 30, 32, and 49 because each depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Id. at 29-32, 34. The Examiner's use of the teachings of Thiot, Helot, Furman, and Sabounjian, respectively, does not cure the deficiencies in Rejection I, as discussed supra. See Final Act. 11-15. 5 Appeal2014-005048 Application 13/108, 173 Therefore, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 18 as unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Thiot; of claims 22, 23, 32, and 52 as unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Helot; of claim 30 as unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Furman; and of claim 49 as unpatentable over Borah, McKelvey, and Sabounjian. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 16-34, 36, and 45-52 is reversed. REVERSED 6