Ex Parte Wood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2016

12822251 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/822,251 06/24/2010
46726 7590 10/13/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Wood
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.
2010P00837US 5501
EXAMINER
MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2016 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 MARK WOOD and ANTHONY ZYMROZ, JR.
Appeal2014-009268
Application 12/822,251
Technology Center 3600
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaffer (US 2009/0044795 Al, pub. Feb. 19, 2009) and
Kim (US 5,007,607, iss. Apr. 16, 1991). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claims 21-26 are also pending, but have been indicated by the Examiner
as allowable if rewritten in independent form. Non-Final 5. Thus, claims
21-26 are not reviewed herein.
Appeal2014-009268
Application 12/822,251
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a compressive stabilizing grate foot. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A foot for a pan support of a home appliance, the foot
compnsmg:
an insertion portion at a first end of the foot for inserting
into a recess in the pan support; and
a lower portion adjacent the insertion portion, the lower
portion having a compression edge at a second end of the foot
opposite the first end in a longitudinal direction of the foot,
wherein the compression edge is adapted to deform under
the weight of the pan support when the foot is received by a flat
receiving surface of the home appliance,
the compression edge is a resilient material, and
a dome shaped recess is formed in the lower portion.
OPINION
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Appellants argue all of
the claims under rejection together. Appeal Br. 8-10. We select claim 1 for
review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Shaff er teaches all of the features of claim 1
with the exception of the dome-shaped recess. Non-Final 3--4. Kim is relied
on for the dome-shaped recess and the Examiner explains that the
combination of Shaffer and Kim is obvious "in order to maintain a strong
grip and enable expansion and contraction regardless of a home appliance's
weight, as taught to be desirable by Kim." Id. at 4 (citing Kim, 1:55-57).
Appellants first argue "that Kim does not show a dome shaped
recess." Appeal Br. 9. They argue that Kim has a cross shaped rib 3b with a
"curvilinear face 3a" and that the only recesses are the "four voids created
by [the] cross shaped rib 3b." Id. Appellants also argue that the "curvilinear
2
Appeal2014-009268
Application 12/822,251
face 3a" of Kim "is not dome shaped because it is not hemispherical."
Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' arguments are unconvincing. As noted by the Examiner,
"[a]s seen in Fig. 2 of Kim, there is a cross[-]section of his device, which
comprises the curved dome shape 3a." Answer 5. The claims require a
dome shaped recess and a portion of the larger recess of Kim is dome
shaped. Further, the Examiner clarifies that "the Kim reference is only
being used to teach the dome shape." Id. Thus, the larger recess and ribs of
Kim are not part of the rejection.
Appellants also argue that it would not be obvious to combine the
cross-shaped rib 3b of Kim with the device of Shaffer. Appeal Br. 9. But,
as noted above, the ribs of Kim are not relied on in the rejection. Thus, this
argument fails to identify error in the rejection.
Appellants also argue "that it would not have been obvious to
combine cross shaped rib 3b (or its curvilinear face 3a) with the insert 152 of
Shaffer because it is desirable in Shaffer to have a flat surface in head
portion 154 for the head of the fastener to press against." Id. Appellants
further argue that "the small central section of cross shaped rib 3 [b] ...
would not provide enough material to allow a vertical hole for the fastener of
Shaffer." Id. These arguments appear to be specific to the embodiment of
Figure 7 of Shaffer, but we note that not all embodiments of Shaffer use
fasteners. For example, the insert 152 shown in Figure 8 of Shaffer does not
use a fastener, but also includes all of the structure (with identical reference
numbers) relied upon by the Examiner. See Non-Final 3--4. Thus, we are
not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection.
3
Appeal2014-009268
Application 12/822,251
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For these
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17,
18, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 18,
and 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4