Ex Parte Eckartsberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

12525566 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER ECKARTSBERG,
FRANK PLACKE, MATTHIAS STAHL,
and ULRICH VAN PELS
____________

Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants Peter Eckartsberg, Frank Placke, Matthias Stahl, and
Ulrich van Pels appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims
8, 9, and 11–26. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a refrigeration device with shelves
suspended on a rail. Spec. 1. Claim 15 illustrates the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
15. A refrigeration device comprising:
a body;
a vertical rail, the vertical rail being secured to the body
and having a front side, a rear side, and a plurality of through-
openings spaced from each other; and
a shelf support having
a rear flank that faces the front side of the vertical
rail in an installed position of the shelf support on the
vertical rail,
an upper hook with a tip oriented downwardly in
the installed position of the shelf support on the vertical
rail at a spacing from the rear flank, and
a lower hook with a tip oriented downwardly in the
installed position of the shelf support on the vertical rail
at a spacing from the rear flank,
wherein, in the installed position of the shelf support on
the vertical rail, the lower hook is in engagement with a
respective one of the through-openings,
the upper hook is in engagement with a respective
one of the through-openings with only the tip of the
upper hook being in contact with the rear side of the
vertical rail,
the tip of the lower hook is substantially not in
contact with the rear side of the vertical rail,
the only portion of the rear flank in contact with
the front side of the vertical rail is below the lower hook,
the lower hook rests on a lower edge of the
respective one of the through-openings with which it is
engaged, and
the upper hook does not rest on a lower edge of the
respective one of the through-openings with which it is
engaged.

Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

3
PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
that are the subject of this appeal:
Bertram
Bird
US 4,624,376
US 5,454,638
Nov. 25, 1986
Oct. 3, 1995

GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 8, 9, and 11–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bird in view of Bertram. Ans. 4.

OPINION
Claims 8, 9, and 11–20
Each of independent claims 8 and 15 recite that “the upper hook does
not rest on a lower edge of the respective one of the through-openings with
which it is engaged.” The Examiner finds that “Bird shows the tip of the
upper hook 48 is in contact with the rear side of the vertical rail but doesn’t
show that the upper hook doesn’t rest on a lower edge of the respective one
of the through opening[s].” Ans. 6. However, the Examiner finds that
Figure 2 of Bertram shows an upper hook 34 that is not resting on a lower
edge of the opening 14. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious
to modify the upper hook of Bird, so that the inwardly
projecting part does not rest on the lower edge of the respective
opening with only the tip in contact with the rear side of the
vertical rail, as shown by Bertram, in order to allow slight
vertical adjustment of the shelf support and facilitate an easy
removal and disengagement the bracket from the openings.
Id.
Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

4
Appellants assert that Bertram’s Figure 2, as properly understood,
“shows a condition of shelf support 16 before it is pushed down into its final
operational position” and therefore “Bertram does not teach or suggest the
upper hook 34 not resting on the lower edge of slot 14.” App. Br. 8.
Appellants’ basis for this interpretation of Bertram is that
basic physics dictate that the downward force generated by the
gravitational pull on the shelf support 16, shelf 18, and the
items placed on the shelf 18 must be counteracted by an equal
and opposite upward force. In Fig. 2 no upward force is being
applied to shelf support 16 through hooks 34, 36 resting on the
lower surfaces of slots 14 because hooks 34, 36 do not rest on
slots 14.
Reply Br. 3–4. In response, the Examiner points out that “[t]here is nothing
in Bertram that states the shelf is pushed down after the position shown in
Fig. 2.” Ans. 8.
When determining obviousness, teachings of the prior art “are to be
viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill.” In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A skilled artisan would
appreciate when viewing Bertram’s Figure 2 that in order to support its own
weight, the shelf bracket 16 must have some vertical support. Bertram
describes that hooks 34 and 36 fit through slots 14 in vertical support 12,
thereby “provid[ing] a connection with support 12 which converts the shelf
bracket 16 into a cantilever support which provides both vertical support to
the shelf and any contents thereon and torsional rigidity preventing
downward rotation of the shelf under load.” Bertram, col. 2, l. 68 – col. 3, l.
7. Bertram also teaches that the “[h]ook 34 extends through the slot 14 and
around support portion 42, as shown, to form a firm connection. . . .” Id. at
col. 3, ll. 19–20. Thus, Bertram’s disclosure makes clear that the connection
Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

5
formed by the hook 34 in the slot 14 is firm and, together with the hook 36,
provides vertical support for the shelf bracket 16. Because Figure 2 does not
show either of the hooks 34, 36 in a position in which they can vertically
support the shelf bracket 16, we agree with Appellants that the most natural
understanding of Bertram’s disclosure is that Figure 2 depicts the shelf
bracket 16 during installation, before the hooks 34 and 36 have slid down to
rest on the lower edges of the slots 14. As such, a skilled artisan would not
glean from Bertram a teaching to maintain a space between the hook 34 and
the lower edge of the slot 14. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence
does not support the Examiner’s finding that Bertram teaches an upper hook
that does not rest on a lower edge of an opening. See Ans. 6.
Moreover, even if a skilled artisan understood Bertram’s Figure 2 to
represent the final, installed position of the shelf bracket 16, the Examiner
has not articulated a persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would modify
Bird by incorporating from Bertram only the feature of a space between the
hook 34 and the lower edge of the slot 14. See App. Br. 11. To establish
obviousness, “it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose
the claim limitations; in addition, ‘it can be important to identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements as the new invention does.’” Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)). See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

6
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
Here, the reasons the Examiner articulates for the proposed
combination are “to allow slight vertical adjustment of the shelf support and
facilitate an easy removal and disengagement [of] the bracket from the
openings.” Ans. 6. It is unclear why the Examiner’s proposed modification
of Bird would provide the benefit of allowing vertical adjustment. It would
appear that if a space were created between Bird’s mounting hook 48 and the
lower edge of the slot 46, upward vertical movement of the shelf support
would be unaffected, and downward vertical movement would still be
blocked by the contact between the lower surface of the locking tab 50 and
the rung 60. See Bird Fig. 5. Thus, the stated reason for the proposed
modification lacks rational underpinning.
Regarding facilitating removal, the Examiner does not identify any
disclosure in the references themselves supporting that the modification the
Examiner proposes would ease removal of the bracket.1 Further, we note
that Appellants’ Specification discloses that the invention’s aim is to
guarantee “easy release of the shelf support from the rail.” Spec. 1, ll. 14–
15. According to the Specification, this aim is achieved in part because “the
upper hook runs at a distance from the lower edge of the through-opening
through which it reaches.” Id. at 2, ll. 5–8. This configuration “prevents

1 We recognize that the reason for a proposed modification need not come
from the cited references. See Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v.
Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The obviousness
analysis may properly include “recourse to logic, judgment and common
sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Technologies,
Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

7
mutual adhesion [of the hooks], which facilitates the release of the shelf
supports from the rail. . . .” Id. at 2, ll. 8–10. That the Examiner’s reason
for modifying Bird to include a space between the upper hook and the lower
edge of the opening is also disclosed in the Specification as the Appellants’
reason for configuring the hooks in this manner suggests that the proposed
modification is the product of impermissible hindsight. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8
and 15. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9, 11–14,
and 16–20, which are based on the same combination and reasoning.

Claims 21–26
Independent claim 21 recites that “a vertical distance between the
lower edge of the first through-opening and the lower edge of the second
through-opening is less than a vertical distance between the lower surface of
the penetration section of the upper hook and the lower surface of the
penetration section of the lower hook.” The Examiner finds that this
limitation would be met
when the upper hook 48 (see Fig. 5) of Bird is modified with
the upper hook of Bertram to not rest on the lower edge of the
opening 46, thus creating a small gap between the lower surface
of the penetration section of hook 48 and the lower edge of the
respective opening 46. . . .
Ans. 6. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, as well as dependent claims
22–26, is based on the same combination and reasoning as discussed above.
See id. at 5–8. For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 21–26.

Appeal 2012-007795
Application 12/525,566

8
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, and 11–26.

REVERSED

hh