Ex Parte Brachert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

10582209 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAINER BRACHERT
____________________

Appeal 2010-011330
Application 10/582,209
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011330
Application 10/582,209

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 15-23, 29-31, and 34-38. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
15. A housing for a household appliance, comprising a body
and at least one door, which is connected to the body in a
manner that enables it to swivel due to the provision of at least
one first and one second multiple-articulation hinge, wherein
the door is supported on an upper supporting surface of the first
multiple-articulation hinge and a lower supporting surface of
the second multiple-articulation hinge by means of at least one
shim inserted between the door and at least one of the
supporting surfaces.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Horgan
Richardson
Lanzani
US 3,555,733
US 5,113,628
US 5,471,709
Jan. 19, 1971
May 19, 1992
Dec. 5, 1995
Mansfeld GB 708,367 May 5, 1954

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following obviousness rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 15-19, 21-23, 29-31, and 34-36 over Lanzani and Mansfeld.
Appeal 2010-011330
Application 10/582,209

3
II. Claim 20 over Lanzani, Mansfeld, and Richardson.
III. Claims 37 and 38 over Lanzani, Mansfeld, and Horgan.

OPINION
Appellant argues claims 15-19, 21-23, 29-31, and 34-36 as a group
(App. Br. 10-17); we select claim 15 as representative. Appellant separately
argues the rejections of (II) claim 20 and (III) claims 37 and 38, but relies on
the arguments set forth for the first group (including claim 15). App. Br. 17-
18. Accordingly, the outcome of these rejections will be determined from
the resolution of the issues raised for claim 15.
In general, the claim is directed to a hinge between a body and a door
(e.g., of a refrigerator). Shims are placed between the door and a part of the
hinge (e.g., to adjust the relative position of the door on the body).
The Examiner found that Lanzani describes all the features of the
claimed device, except for the shim between the door and the supporting
surface of the hinge. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Mansfeld describes a
shim between a door and a supporting surface of a hinge. Id. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the hinge of Lanzani to
include a shim between the door and a supporting surface of the hinge to
allow for vertical adjustment of the door. Id.; see also Ans. 13-14
(explaining the benefits of the combination).
Appellant argues, throughout both briefs, that Lanzani discusses
adjustment of the position of the panel with respect to the door (as opposed
to the door with respect to the body).1 While we consider this statement

1 Lanzani discloses a hinge for a door of a built-in appliance wherein the
hinge likewise attaches to a panel that matches the surrounding furniture (or
Appeal 2010-011330
Application 10/582,209

4
accurate, there is no reason the primary reference is required to disclose or
expressly suggest the Examiner’s proposed modification. The Examiner
relies upon Mansfeld to describe the addition of shims to adjust the
door/body relationship. See Ans. 4.
Appellant’s arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
no reason to modify the hinge in Lanzani to include Mansfeld’s shims are
likewise unpersuasive. The ability of Lanzani to adjust the panel relative to
the door does not preclude the ability of the door to be adjusted relative to
the body. These two adjustments are not redundant because they adjust
different things. Accordingly, the proposed modification would allow for
the further benefit of having vertical adjustment of the door relative to the
body, something Lanzani cannot do.
Having reviewed Appellant’s arguments, we are not apprised of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. Claims 16-19, 21-23, 29-31, and
34-36 fall therewith. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 20, 37, and 38, are
likewise not in error.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 15-23, 29-31,
and 34-38.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

cabinetry). See, e.g., col. 1, ll. 13-24. Lanzani is concerned with making
sure the panel on the door is flush with the other surrounding surfaces. See,
e.g., col. 1, ll. 25-35, 40-47, col. 2, ll. 21-24.
Appeal 2010-011330
Application 10/582,209

5
AFFIRMED

mls