Ex Parte DaviesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201612809081 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 9861-3 7192 EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/809,081 12/22/2010 20792 7590 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 12/23/2016 Daniel Davies 12/23/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL DAVIES Appeal 2014-009083 Application 12/809,081 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—3, 5—8, and 12—15. Claims 9—11 and 16—23 were allowed by the Examiner. Final Act. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Panasonic Manufacturing UK Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2014-009083 Application 12/809,081 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A door opening mechanism for a domestic appliance, the domestic appliance including a housing, a front door, and a resilient member, for urging the door open, the door opening mechanism comprising: a retention mechanism, engageable with the door and movable between a first configuration, in which the door is retained, or capable of being retained, in a closed position, and a second configuration, in which the door is non-retained, in an open position; a cam, the cam having a plurality of cam surfaces, each cam surface being adapted to move the retention mechanism out of said first configuration through caroming action; and a rotary motor, for driving the cam in response to control signals; wherein the door opening mechanism is adapted to be located within the housing; wherein the door comprises a door key comprising an inclined portion engag[e]able with an edge of a sloping section of a hollow slot in a moulding of the door, and configured such that a user is able to manually over-ride the opening mechanism and open the door by means of pulling. Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoon (US 4,825,027, issued Apr. 25, 1989) and Seo (US 6,137,096, issued Oct. 24, 2000). Final Act. 2—3. 2. Claims 3,12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoon, Seo, and Kachouh (US 2004/0113438 Al, published June 17, 2004). Final Act. 3^4. 2 Appeal 2014-009083 Application 12/809,081 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 3—12; Reply Br. 1 4). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner (1) in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-4) and (2) in the Answer (see Ans. 2-4). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 13, and 14 Appellant argues the combination of Yoon and Seo does not teach the following limitations recited in claim 1: wherein the door comprises a door key comprising an inclined portion engag[e]able with an edge of a sloping section of a hollow slot in a moulding of the door, and configured such that a user is able to manually over-ride the opening mechanism and open the door by means of pulling. App. Br. 5—6. Appellant acknowledges that, in Seo, depressing protruding end 24a will manually over-ride the opening mechanism. Reply Br. 4 (citing Seo col. 4,11. 48-49). Appellant also acknowledges that, once the latch is released, “[t]he user is then able to open the door by pulling the handle.” See id. (citing Seo col. 4,11. 50-67). Appellant contends, however, that under the language of claim 1, “it is the pulling which both over-rides the opening mechanism and opens the door.” Id. at 3^4. Appellant argues: It appears that the Examiner is interpreting the recitation “the user is able to manually over-ride the opening mechanism and open the door by means of pulling” as only requiring the door to opened by means of pulling. However, if the claim were intended to be read like this, it would state that “the user is able 3 Appeal 2014-009083 Application 12/809,081 to manually over-ride the opening mechanism^ and open the door by means of pulling.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to require only the opening of the door to be accomplished by means of pulling. See Ans. 3^4. Although it also may be reasonable to interpret the phrase “by means of pulling” as applying to both the actions of (1) “manually over-rid[ing] the opening mechanism” and (2) “opening] the door,” the claim as drafted is not limited to such an interpretation. Appellant’s argument that the claim could have been drafted differently to clarity that “by means of pulling” applies only to “open the door” (see Reply Br. 4) is not persuasive because the claim could also have been drafted to clarity that “by means of pulling” also applies to the phrase “manually over-ride the opening mechanism.” For example, the phrasing “such that a user is able to, only by means of pulling, manually over-ride the opening mechanism to open the door” would perhaps limit the claim in the way Appellant intends.2 As drafted, claim 1 is at most ambiguous as to whether a user must be able to manually over-ride the opening mechanism by means of pulling. In view of our interpretation of claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Seo teaches a configuration “such that a user is able to manually over ride the opening mechanism and open the door by means of pulling.” As noted above, Appellant acknowledges Seo teaches manual over-ride of the 2 Our example is intended only to illustrate that alternate phrasing exists that addresses the issue argued by Appellant. We express no opinion on whether such phrasing is supported by Appellant’s disclosure or patentable. 4 Appeal 2014-009083 Application 12/809,081 opening mechanism by pressing protruding end 24a and opening the door by pulling. Appellant also argues that the principal of operation of Seo and Yoon would be changed and the devices would be rendered unsatisfactory for their intended purpose were the “door key” of Seo or Yoon configured such that a user is able to manually override the opening mechanism and open the door by means of pulling. App. Br. 8—10. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection because it is premised on Appellant’s narrower interpretation of claim 1, which we reject for the reasons set forth above. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Seo teaches the disputed limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation because Seo teaches that a user is able to manually over-ride the opening mechanism by pressing protruding end 24a and opening the door by pulling. We also agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to modify Yoon to include manual over-ride as taught by Seo “in order to manually open the door when it is necessary” (Final Act. 3), such as “in case of a power failure” (Seo col. 4,11. 47—49). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoon and Seo. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 5—8, which are not argued separately, and the rejection of claims 13 and 14, for which Appellant’s arguments present the same issues as claim 1 (see App. Br. 11). 5 Appeal 2014-009083 Application 12/809,081 Claims 3, 12, and 15 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3,12, and 15 because these claims depend from claim 1 or 15. App. Br. 10, 12. For the same reasons as claims 1 and 13, we sustain the rejection of claims 3,12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoon, Seo, and Kachouh. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 5—8, and 12— 15. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation