Ex Parte Bohm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13131044 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

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