Elkasevic, Suad

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2019

13478277 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019)

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.
13/478,277 05/23/2012 Suad Elkasevic 2011P04000US 1023
46726 7590 10/02/2019
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
EXAMINER
O BRIEN, JEFFREY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2019 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 SUAD ELKASEVIC
___________

Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of written description and to reject claims 19–38 under 35 U.S.C.

1 The subject application was previously before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board in Appeal No. 2014-008204. See Decision dated October 21, 2016. In
that Decision, the adverse decision of the Examiner was AFFIRMED.
Following that Decision, Appellant reopened prosecution and further
amended the claims.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BSH Home Appliances
Corporation. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed July 24, 2017.
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

2
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hopkins (US 3,450,125, issued June 17,
1969), White (US 2011/0017191 A1, published Jan. 27, 2011), and Priddy
(US 7,017,232 B1, issued Mar. 28, 2006). Claims 1–18 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claimed subject matter relates to “a hinge assembly used with a
door of a domestic appliance.” Spec. ¶ 2, Fig. 2. Claims 19, 25, and 31 are
independent.
Claim 19 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
19. A hinge assembly for pivotably attaching a door to
a domestic appliance having an appliance body, the hinge
assembly comprising:
a hinge body;
a damper having a central longitudinal axis and
including a damper cylinder attached to the hinge body,
the damper cylinder having a rod partially located inside
the cylinder and partially located outside the cylinder, and
a coil spring located inside the cylinder and around the rod
such that the rod extends through a center of a coil of the
coil spring, the damper damping the movement of the rod
relative to the cylinder, and the rod extending along the
central longitudinal axis of the damper;
a pair of linkage members coupled to the damper
and forming a slot therein to receive a linkage member pin;
a foot pivotably attached to the pair of linkage
members and having a pivot end, the foot operable to
engage a foot receiving portion of the appliance body such
that the hinge body and the door pivot relative to the
appliance body; and
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

3
a shoulder bushing attached to the pivot end of the
foot and to a pivot point of the hinge body such that the
foot pivots relative to the hinge body around the pivot
point, the shoulder bushing having a large diameter
portion and a small diameter portion,
wherein the pivot end of the foot is fixed to the
shoulder bushing at a fixing area of the small diameter
portion such that a side surface of the pivot end of the foot
is in contact with a side surface of the large diameter
portion.

ANALYSIS
Written Description
The Examiner determines that “[c]laims 37 and 38 require that ‘the
slot has a substantially uniform width[.]’ There is not description of this
limitation in the originally filed disclosure” and that “original Figure 2
shows the slot from an angled view [or an isometric view], which does not
show the slot in enough detail to know if it has a substantially uniform
width. This limitation therefore amounts to new matter.” Final Act. 2–3;
see also Ans. 2–4.3
Compliance with the written description requirement set forth in the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require that the claimed subject
matter be described identically in the Specification, but the disclosure as
originally filed must convey to those skilled in the art that applicant had
invented the subject matter later claimed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The drawings in an application can be relied upon to
show that an inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the

3 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Apr. 24, 2017; Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”), dated Sept. 15, 2017.
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

4
filing date. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“[D]rawings alone may be sufficient to provide the ‘written
description of the invention’ required by § 112, first paragraph.”).
When a word of degree, such as the term “substantially,” is used in a
claim, we look to the specification to determine whether the specification
provides some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Co. Inc.,
v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In addition, the term “substantially,” which is often used in conjunction with
another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention,
is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 165 (CCPA 1960). In this
case, the qualifying term “substantially” modifies the term “uniform” to
include widths that are approximately uniform. In other words, a width that
is “substantially uniform” includes widths that are absolutely uniform as
well as widths that are approximately uniform.
Upon review of Appellant’s Figure 2, we determine slots 710, 810 are
approximately uniform in width. See Fig. 2; see also Spec. ¶ 20; Appeal Br.
5; Reply Br. 2–3.4 Hence, Appellant’s Figure 2 conveys with reasonable
clarity to a skilled artisan that each of the slots have a “substantially uniform
width.”5 As the original Figure 2 clearly discloses a slot having a
“substantially uniform width,” we are of the opinion that the originally filed
Specification and drawings fully and clearly disclose a device which

4 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Nov. 14, 2017.
5 The Examiner states that “Figure 2 actually appears to show the slots (710,
810) narrowing at their ends.” Ans. 3; see also id. at 4 (The Examiner’s
modified version of Figure 2 of the subject invention). However, as discussed
above, a width that is “substantially uniform” includes widths that are
absolutely uniform and widths that are approximately uniform.
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

5
demonstrates that Appellant was in possession of the claimed subject matter
at the time the application was filed. We, therefore, determine that the
original disclosure satisfies the written description requirement.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 37
and 38 for lack of written description.

Obviousness over Hopkins, White, and Priddy

Independent claim 19 is directed to a hinge assembly including “a pair
of linkage members coupled to the damper and forming a slot therein to
receive a linkage member pin.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Hopkins6 discloses the hinge assembly of claim 19
substantially as claimed except, among other things, that Hopkins “does not
disclose wherein the pair of linkage members forms a slot therein to receive
the link member pin” and instead, Hopkins discloses “the link member pin
engages a curved surface of the pair of linkage members (as seen in Figure
2).” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Priddy7 discloses “a hinge
having a link member (28) having a curved slot (32).” Id. at 5. The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to replace the curved
surface in the link member of [Hopkins] with the curved slot of [Priddy] in
order to slow movement speed of the link member pin with respect to the
link members during movement of the hinge.” Id.
Appellant contends that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated
to look at Priddy and combine Priddy with the link members of Hopkins
because Hopkins would be rendered inoperable for its intended purposes.”

6 The Examiner refers to the Hopkins reference as (’125). See Final Act. 4.
7 The Examiner refers to the Priddy reference as (’232). See Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

6
Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4–6. In particular, Appellant contends that
“[t]he purpose of Hopkins is to help ease closure of the door,” that “[t]he slot
in Priddy narrows at the distal end to grip the shank of the fastener to
prevent the door from closing” and that the door of Priddy “is designed to
stay open, and the holding of the door in the open position is made possible
by the narrowing slot in Priddy. In other words, the function of the slot [in
Priddy] is to hold the door open and prevent closure of the door.” Appeal
Br. 8 (citing Hopkins 1:41–44; Priddy 3:11–17). Appellant concludes that
“[i]f, as suggested by the Office Action, the curved surface in the link
member of Hopkins were replaced with the slot of Priddy, the door [of the
modified Hopkins’ device] would not be able to close and function
properly.” Id.
Appellant has the better position here. Hopkins discloses that an
object of the invention is “to provide a counterbalanced hinge arm
arrangement to assist in closing oven doors.” Hopkins 1:41–43. Hopkins
further discloses
While the weight of the door 12, overpowering the
tension of spring. 22, holds it open, the spring tension
remains a counterbalancing force for when the door is to
be closed. Because the hook end 25 connection of spring
22 and the pivotal connection of link 20, at 21, are aligned
over the roller 28, the spring exerts a lifting effort on the
roller and assists in the closing of door 12.

To close the door 12, from either the intermediate
or fully opened positions, the door is moved by either the
handle, or pushing against it, towards the closed position.
The link 20 moves through its tension-relieving arc as the
door swings on its pivot 18 and the intermediate stop 31 is
passed over without other than normal effort. In the
course of such movement, the spring works as mentioned
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

7
to counterbalance the major weight of the door and to
assist in the closing.

Hopkins 3:13–28 (emphases added), Fig. 2.
Priddy discloses that under normal operation, “[t]he slider bar 68 and
its tension spring 78 serve to counteract the weight of an open drop down
door, weakly biasing the door to the closed position and thus facilitating
lifting the door for closure.” Priddy 5:42–45 (emphasis added); see also id.
at 6:4–5, 8–11, Fig. 2A. Priddy further discloses that when utilizing hinge
plate 28 with slot 32, “[t]he narrower width of slot 32 toward its second end
96b bears against the fastener 42, thereby slowing the rotational movement
of the hinge plate 28 and thus slowing the drop of the door arm 54 and door
attached thereto,” which “also tends to jam the hinge plate 28 into position
as shown in FIG. 2D, which lessens the ability of the tension spring 78 to
rotate the assembly (and door) back to its original [closed] position.” Id. at
9:38–45 (emphases added), Figs. 2D, 4; see also id. at 3:10–16 (Explaining
that frictionally gripping the shank of a fastener within the narrowed slot of
the hinge plate prevents the door from swinging upwardly by means of the
balance spring and slider mechanism incorporated therewith).
In this case, according to Priddy, frictionally gripping the shank of
fastener 42 within narrowed slot 32 of hinge plate 28 (1) prevents the oven
door from swinging upwardly by means of balance/tension spring 78 and
(2) lessens the ability of balance/tension spring 78 to rotate the oven door
back to its closed position (i.e., lessens the ability of balance/tension spring
78 to facilitate lifting the oven door for closure). See Priddy 3:10–16, 9:38–
45, Figs. 2D, 4; see also Reply Br. 6 (“The slot of Priddy narrows
specifically to grip the pin such that the door cannot swing upward by means
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

8
of the spring.”). This is contrary to the teachings of Hopkins, which require
spring 22 to exert a lifting effort on roller/fastener 28 and assist in the
closure of door 12. See Hopkins 3:16–19; see also id. at 3:25–28
(Explaining that in the course of closing door 12, spring 22 works to
counterbalance the major weight of door 12 and to assist in the closing of
door 12).
Additionally, as correctly pointed out by Appellant, frictionally
gripping the shank of fastener 42 within narrowed slot 32 of hinge plate 28
tends to jam8 (wedge) hinge plate 28 into position. See Reply Br. 5–6; see
also Priddy 9:38–43. We agree with Appellant that “hinge plate 28 [being]
jammed [wedged] into position, [would] indicate[] that a larger force than
normal [would be] needed to unjam the hinge plate 28 [of Priddy] to close
the door.” See Reply Br. 5. In other words, closing the oven door of Priddy
when incorporating hinge plate 28 would require “a large[r] degree of force
beyond a normally closing force.” See id. at 6. This is also contrary to the
teachings of Hopkins, which require link member 20 to move door 12
towards the closed position “without other than normal effort” (i.e., without
a larger than normal force). See Hopkins 3:20–25 (emphasis added). As
such, we agree with Appellant that “the slot of Priddy is not used in the
hinge under normal circumstances where the hinge can open and close
without any issues, as in Hopkins.” Reply Br. 4
Based on the foregoing reasons, modifying Hopkins’ device to replace
the curved surface in link member 20 of Hopkins with the curved slot of

8 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “jam” is “to become
blocked, wedged, or stuck fast.” https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/jam (last accessed Sept. 16, 2019).
Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

9
Priddy would defeat the purpose of spring 22 of Hopkins of exerting a lifting
effort on roller/fastener 28 and assisting in the closure of door 12 as well as
the purpose of link member 20 of Hopkins to move door 12 towards the
closed position “without other than normal effort.” See Hopkins 3:13–28
(emphasis added). Where the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the
proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air, Inc. v.
Denso Mfg. Michigan, Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Hence, the modification
proposed by the Examiner would not have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
Independent claims 25 and 31 include language directed to “a pair of
linkage members coupled to the damper and forming a slot therein to receive
a linkage member pin.” Appeal Br. 13, 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner
relies on the same unsupported findings in Hopkins and Priddy as those
discussed above for claim 19. See Final Act. 4–5. Thus, the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Hopkins and Priddy are deficient for claims 25 and
31 as well.
Accordingly, for these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19–38 as unpatentable over Hopkins, White, and Priddy.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 37 and
38 for lack of written description.

Appeal 2018-001099
Application 13/478,277

10
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19–38 as
unpatentable over Hopkins, White, and Priddy.

REVERSED