Ex Parte Cho

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2012

10824350 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NAM SEON CHO
____________

Appeal 2010-003739
Application 10/824,350
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003739
Application 10/824,350

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art and Mitchell (US 5,542,795; iss.
Aug. 6, 1996). Claims 2, 5, 13, 14, and 17-19 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A refrigerator door assembly, comprising:
a sliding door configured to be slid open and closed;
a handle provided on a top edge surface of the door; and
a plurality of handle holders each having an end fixed to
the door and another end attached to the handle, wherein the
end fixed to the door comprises:
a handle holder member extended to the handle; and
a supporting member protruded in a first direction on
a lower surface of the handle holder member and
receivable within a groove provided in the door,
preventing damage from occurring on the handle holder,
wherein the supporting member is disposed between
the handle and a securing mechanism configured to
secure a corresponding handle holder to the side of the
door so as to absorb a force applied to the handle in a
second direction opposite to the first direction and
reinforce a strength of the handle holder when the sliding
door is slid open and closed, and
wherein the supporting member is integrally formed
with the handle holder such that the supporting member
and the handle holder are a single unitary piece.

Independent claim 16 recites a similar handle assembly for a
refrigerator door having a handle, and a plurality of handle holders
that comprise a handle holder member and a supporting member.
Appeal 2010-003739
Application 10/824,350

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that the Admitted Prior Art shown in Figures 1-3
of Appellant’s Specification discloses a refrigerator door assembly with a
sliding door, a handle, and a plurality of handle holders, but does not
disclose a supporting member protruded on a lower surface of the handle
holder and receivable in a groove provided in the door. Ans. 3. The
Examiner found that Mitchell discloses a supporting member 50 protruded
in a first direction on a lower surface of a first structure and receivable
within a groove 32 on a second structure 26 to absorb force and reinforce the
first structure. Ans. 4. The Examiner also found that it is well-known in the
art that increasing the thickness of a structure increases its structural rigidity
and integrally forming supporting members, as taught by Mitchell, on a
contacting surface between the handle and door of the Admitted Prior Art
would prevent damage from occurring on the handle holder, absorb a force
applied to the handle in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and
reinforce a strength of the handle when sliding the door open and closed.
Ans. 4. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
include Mitchell’s supporting member on each handle holder of the
Admitted Prior Art to provide stronger, more secure connections, prevent
slippage by the handle holders, and aid in positioning the handle holders on
the door during manufacturing. Ans. 4.
The Examiner has not articulated an adequate reason why a person
skilled in the art would have used structure from Mitchell’s milling cutter
inserts to modify the structure of the handle holder of the Admitted Prior Art
refrigerator door. App. Br. 6. Appellant claims a refrigerator door assembly
comprising a supporting member that protrudes in a first direction on a
Appeal 2010-003739
Application 10/824,350

4
lower surface of a handle holder to absorb force applied to the handle in an
opposite direction and reinforces the handle holder when the refrigerator
door slides open and closed. In contrast to the claimed supporting member,
Mitchell discloses a milling cutter that has universal insert seats 26 that
receive and secure different shaped inserts 36 with different cutting edges.
Mitchell, col. 1, ll. 6-12. To secure the inserts 36 against cutting forces that
push the inserts 36 inwardly and outwardly in a radial direction and rotate
them about an axis of a locking screw 53, a rail 50 is formed integrally on
the back face 40 of each insert 36 to be received in a similarly shaped slot 32
formed in each insert seat 26. Mitchell, col. 5, ll. 41-64; fig. 5.
The Examiner has not adequately explained why a person skilled in
the art would have included Mitchell’s rail 50, which is designed to secure
cutting inserts 36 against rotational and radial forces, on a refrigerator door
handle holder, which is subjected to a lifting force. Spec. [0022]. Nor is it
clear how adding Mitchell’s rail 50 to the Admitted Prior Art would result in
a supporting member disposed between a handle and a securing mechanism
that secures a handle holder to the side of the door to absorb a force applied
to the handle in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction in
which the supporting member protrudes from a lower surface of the handle
holder member, and to reinforce the handle holder when the sliding door is
slid open and closed as called for in claim 1. Even if a greater structural
thickness increases structural rigidity generally, as the Examiner found (Ans.
7-8), the Examiner has not adequately explained how a cutter rail 50 would
improve the structural rigidity of a refrigerator door handle holder against
forces applied to the handle in a second direction that is opposite to a first
direction that a supporting member protrudes on a lower surface of the
Appeal 2010-003739
Application 10/824,350

5
handle holder member. Regarding the Examiner’s finding that Mitchell’s
rail 50 aids in positioning the insert in a seat 26 (Ans. 7), Mitchell discloses
that a counter-bore 48 of the insert 36 aligns the insert 36 within the seat 26
when the locking screw 53 is tightened. Mitchell, col. 5, ll. 33-39. As such,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 15, and 16.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 15, and 16 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls