Ex Parte Bohm et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201813131044 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/131,044 05/25/2011 23117 7590 09/04/2018 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andreas Bohm 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. PTB-6032-203 2946 EXAMINER ING,MATTHEWW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREAS BOHM, KLAUS FORSTERLING, KEMAL GENC, JOHANNES GEYER, and STEFAN SCHMIDT Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 17-21 and 23--48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 The real party in interest is BSH Hausgerate GmbH. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 1 7. A household appliance, comprising: a cabinet-shaped housing comprised of a plurality of walls, at least one of the walls having an arrangement of embossings, said arrangement of embossings comprising: a first embossing arranged centered in relation to a center of said at least one wall and configured in the shape of a ring when viewed from above, a second embossing arranged outside the first embossing in substantial concentric relationship to the first embossing, said second embossing configured in the shape of a ring when viewed from above, and at least one third embossing configured in the shape of a strip and arranged outside the second embossing, wherein, as seen in cross section, the first, second and third embossings are formed by inwardly depressed curvatures, and each inwardly depressed curvature extends from a beveled edge, wherein a maximum depth of each of the first, second and third embossings is defined by a depth of the respective beveled edge in addition to a depth of the respective inwardly depressed curvature. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sanchez Schneider US 6,564,908 B2 US 2005/0257326 Al REJECTIONS May 20, 2003 Nov 24, 2005 I. Claims 44--46 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. II. Claims 17-21, 23-39, and 44--48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Schneider. 2 Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 III. Claims 40-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneider and Sanchez. DISCUSSION Rejection I: Indefiniteness of Claims 44-46 and 48 Claims 44--46 The Examiner determines that claims 44--46 are indefinite because "each of these claims depends from claim 1 7, which recites first, second, and third embossings each having a respective beveled edge. It is therefore unclear [to] which of these beveled edges the phrase 'the beveled edge' in claims 44--46 refers." Final Act. 3. In response, Appellants argue that "it is clear that 'the beveled' angle in claims 44--46 refers to the beveled edge associated with the respective curvature." Appeal Br. 7. Claims 44--46 depend from claim 17 which requires, inter alia, "wherein, as seen in cross section, the first, second and third embossings are formed by inwardly depressed curvatures, and each inwardly depressed curvature extends from a beveled edge." Id. at 17 (Claims App.). One skilled in the art reading this limitation in light of the Specification (in particular in light of Fig. 3) would understand that claim 17 requires a beveled edge for each of the first, second, and third embossings. Turning to the claims as issue, claim 44, for example, recites "wherein the depth of each said inwardly depressed curvatures is greater than the depth of the beveled edge." Id. at 21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As discussed supra, claim 1 7 defines a beveled edge associated with each of the first, second, and third embossings. Accordingly, one skilled in the art 3 Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 reading this limitation would understand that the phrase "the beveled edge" refers to the respective beveled edge for each embossing. Thus we do not find the language at issue to be unclear. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 44--46 as being indefinite. Claim 48 The Examiner determines that claim 48 is indefinite because "the phrase 'the angle of the first, second and third embossings' lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear which 'angle' this phrase is referring to." Final Act. 3. Appellants do not contest this rejection. Appeal Br. 7. Rather, Appellants suggest language to clarify claim 48. See id. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's decision rejection claim 48 as being indefinite. Rejection II: Obviousness of Claims 7-21, 23-39, and 44-48 Based on Schneider The Examiner finds that Schneider discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 17. See Final Act. 3-6. In particular, the Examiner finds that Schneider discloses "a second embossing (58) configured in the shape of a ring when viewed from above, and at least one third embossing (54, 56) configured in the shape of a strip and arranged outside the second embossing." Id. at 4. Noting that claim 1 7 requires first and second embossings that are ring shaped, Appellants contend that "Schneider does not disclose a first embossing in the shape of a ring, per claim 17 ... Schneider's second 4 Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 'embossing' 58 is not ring shaped. Rather, the embossing is a 'looping valley' according to Schneider and would not be considered ring." Appeal Br. 8. In support of these contentions, Appellants proffer "[t]he first definition of 'ring' per Merriam-Webster's on line dictionary [which] is a 'circular band', like a wedding ring."2 Id. Appellants argue that "[t]his definition seems most appropriate given that the claimed ring- shaped first/second embossing is like a 'circular band'." Id. Appellants further note that "Schneider does not teach that the looping valley 5 8 is in the shape of a 'ring'. Rather, Schneider's embossing 58 is rather rectangular in shape." Id. at 8-9. Responding to these arguments, the Examiner explains that the Final Action proposes modifying Schneider's wall by adding a first embossing, having smaller length & width than, but having the same shape as, the second embossing, inside the second embossing of Schneider. Since Schneider's second embossing (58) is ring-shaped, the first embossing of Schneider as modified would also be configured in the shape of a ring when viewed from above[]. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that "both the written description of the instant application, and both claim sets included in the original filing of the instant application, clearly use the terms 'ring' and 'ring-shaped' to refer to non-circular looping shapes like Schneider's second embossing." Id. at 5---6 (internal footnotes omitted). In support of this finding, the Examiner cites to 2 Notably, Appellants' claim construction, limiting the claim term "ring" to a "circular band" excludes the embodiment in the Specification wherein the embossings are oval. See, e.g., Spec. , 12 ("The first embossing is in the shape of a ring ... preferably formed from two ovals ... e.g. two ellipses."). 5 Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 numerous portions of the Specification which describe the embossings as oval in shape. See id. In reply, Appellants acknowledge the Examiner's citations. Reply Br. 3. Appellants, however, explain that in each instance "there is no mention of the term 'ring' including shapes that are substantially rectangular, or shapes that include sharp angles. Rather, 'ring' may be associated with an ellipse, an oval, or circular or other smooth or rounded shapes as described in the specification." Id. at 3--4. Appellants' construction of the claim term "ring" meaning an ellipse, oval, or circular shape, excluding sharp comers is consistent with the discussion of this claim term in the Specification and we adopt this claim construction as our own. Thus, the claim term "ring" does not encompass shapes having sharp comers such as those disclosed by Schneider. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 17 as unpatentable over Schneider. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-21, 23-39, and 44--48 which depend from claim 17. Rejection III: Obviousness of Claims 4rJ-43 Based on Schneider and Sanchez The rejection of claims 40--43 incorporates the rejection of claim 17. See Final Act. 13-14. Accordingly, this rejection suffers from the same deficiencies as the rejection of claim 17 discussed supra. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 40--43 as unpatentable over Schneider and Sanchez. 6 Appeal2017-009656 Application 13/131,044 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 44--46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is REVERSED. The Examiner's rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C, § 112, second paragraph is AFFIRMED. The Examiner's rejections of claims 17-21, 23--48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation