Ex Parte Elkasevic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13307092 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/307,092 11130/2011
46726 7590 08/15/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Suad Elkasevic
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.
2011P03299US 7603
EXAMINER
AYRES, TIMOTHY MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUAD ELKASEVIC, JOSEPH GEIGER, CHARLES WEIMER,
and PHILIPP WIESER
Appeal2014-008783 1
Application 13/307 ,0922
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Feb. 4,
2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 12, 2014), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 7, 2014) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed Sept 25, 2013).
2 Appellants identify BSH Home Appliances Corporation as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a hinge system for a side
swing door. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A hinge system for mounting a side swing door of a
domestic kitchen appliance to a frame of the domestic kitchen
appliance, the system comprising:
an upper hinge bracket having
an upper hinge swing element configured to engage
a door upper swing element fixed to the door of the
domestic kitchen appliance, the engagement of the upper
hinge swing element and the door upper swing element
allowing the door to swing about a vertical axis between
an open position and a closed position, and
an upper hinge pivot limiting element configured to
engage a frame pivot limiting element fixed to the frame
of the domestic home appliance;
a lower hinge bracket having
a lo\'l/er hinge S\'l1ing element configured to engage
a door lower swing element, the engagement of the lower
hinge swing element and the door lower swing element
allowing the door to swing about the vertical axis between
the open position and the closed position, and
a system pivot element configured to engage a
frame pivot element such that the upper hinge bracket, the
lower hinge bracket, and the door are pivotable about a
horizontal axis as a unit relative to the frame of the
domestic kitchen appliance between an appliance
operational position and a door removal position; and
an operational position holding element attached to the
upper hinge bracket or the lower hinge bracket, the operational
position holding element configured to releasably hold the door
in the appliance operational position,
2
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
wherein the appliance operational position is a position of
the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge bracket, and the door at
which the domestic kitchen appliance can be operated, and
the upper hinge bracket and the lower hinge bracket are
configured to keep the door attached to the frame of the domestic
kitchen appliance when the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge
bracket and the door are in the door removal position.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Phelps (US 3,710,416, iss. Jan. 16, 1973) and Burton (US
3,906,670, iss. Sept. 23, 1975). 3
II. Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Phelps, Burton, and McDonnold (US 3,045,663, iss. July
24, 1962).4
III. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected, alternatively, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McDonnold and Wegman (US
2004/0034966 Al, pub. Feb. 26, 2004). 5
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of
Phelps and Burton does not disclose or suggest "an upper hinge bracket
3 Claim 22 is included among the claims subject to Rejection I. See Ans. 2.
4 Claim 21 is included among the claims subject to Rejection II. See id. at
3.
5 Claims 21 and 22 are included among the claims subject to Rejection III.
See id.
3
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
having ... an upper hinge pivot limiting element," "a lower hinge bracket
having ... a system pivot element configured to engage a frame pivot
element such that the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge bracket, and the
door are pivotable about a horizontal axis as a unit relative to the frame of
the domestic kitchen appliance between an appliance operational position
and a door removal position," and "the upper hinge bracket and the lower
hinge bracket are configured to keep the door attached to the frame of the
domestic kitchen appliance when the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge
bracket and the door are in the door removal position," as recited in claim 1 .
App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner maintains that the
argued limitations are obvious over a combination of Phelps and Burton.
Ans. 2-3; see also Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner finds Phelps describes a two-hinge system with upper
hinge 10 and lower hinge 10 of the same structure. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds that aperture 58a and screw 56a of upper hinge bracket 10
teach the claimed "upper hinge pivot limiting element" and "frame pivot
limiting element," respectively; and that aperture 58a and screw 56a of
lower hinge bracket 10 teach the claimed "system pivot element" and "frame
pivot element," respectively. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. The Examiner
acknowledges that "Phelps by itself requires that the screws/frame pivot
limiting element of the upper hinge [] be removed when the door is pivoted
to the [claimed] door removal position." Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 2-3.
But the Examiner interprets claim 1 as "not requir[ing] both of the hinges to
remain attached in the door removal position, just that the entire system of
hinges and door remain attached." Id.
4
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation. Claim 1 recites that
"the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge bracket, and the door are pivotable
about a horizontal axis as a unit relative to the frame of the domestic kitchen
appliance between an appliance operational position and a door removal
position," and that "the upper hinge bracket and the lower hinge bracket are
configured to keep the door attached to the frame of the domestic kitchen
appliance when the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge bracket and the
door are in the door removal position." Here, Phelps' upper hinge bracket
10 would not be considered as "configured to keep the door attached to the
frame ... in the door removal position," as required by claim 1, because the
upper hinge bracket must be detached from the frame in the door removal
position.
The Examiner further determines that combining Phelps and Burton
would cure any deficiency in Phelps' upper hinge bracket not being attached
to the frame in the door removal position. Ans. 2-3. In this regard, the
Examiner finds that Burton discloses a hinge with arc-shaped slots 54. Id.
at 2. And the Examiner concludes that that it would have been obvious to
modify Phelps' hinge system by "keeping the motion of Phelps and
changing some of the apertures to arc shaped slots and keeping some as
apertures for final attachment as taught by Burton." Id. at 3. The Examiner
reasons that the proposed modification of Phelps would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention "to allow for easy
readjustment." Final Act. 3. Yet Phelps provides for precise adjustment.
See, e.g., Phelps, col. 5, 1. 51---col. 6, 1. 16 (describing precise adjustment and
alignment achieved by Phelps' hinge system).
5
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
Moreover, Burton teaches a mine ventilation door having only one
hinge with arcuate slots above and below a central hole to allow the door to
be rotated around the central hole into position relative to the hinge before
the hinge is secured by screws to the door. See, e.g., Burton, col. 3, 11. 15-
38. The Examiner does not explain, and it is not readily apparent, how
Phelps' hinge system having two vertically displaced, identical hinges
attached to a door would be modified in view of Burton's single hinge
system to arrive at the claimed invention. For example, it is not readily
apparent how Burton's hinge, with a central hole that allows the door to
rotate around the hinge, discloses or suggests a modification to Phelps'
hinge system that would allow one identical hinge to rotate around a
horizontal axis located at the other identical hinge. Nor, for that matter, does
the Examiner sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had an apparent reason to make such a modification.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1 and claims 2-10 and 22, which depend therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection II
Independent claim 11 includes language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1 and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied
with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 3. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. We also do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 10 and claims 12-21, which
depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
6
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
Rejection III
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Wegman does
not disclose or suggest that "the upper hinge bracket and the lower hinge
bracket are configured to keep the door attached to the frame of the domestic
kitchen appliance when the upper hinge bracket, the lower hinge bracket and
the door are in the door removal position," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 11. App. Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 3--4. In the Final
Office Action, the Examiner relies on Wegman for disclosing the claimed
upper hinge bracket and lower hinge bracket. Final Act. 4. However, the
Examiner does not make any findings regarding the argued limitation. Id.
In response to Appellants' argument that Wegman's hinges are not
configured to keep the door attached in the door removal position, the
Examiner asserts that the claim language does not prevent "screws from
being added or removed between the operation and removal positions."
Ans. 3. And the Examiner considers "loosely hanging on a screw" as
"attached." Id. With reference to Figure 31 of Wegman, the Examiner finds
that "when the slots ( 68) of the upper and lower hinges hang on the screws
(83, 88) the system can pivot horizontal into the door removal position." Id.
at 3--4.
However, we agree with Appellants that vertical channels 68A and
68B serve to hold the door in a particular position and prevent horizontal
tilting when the door is attached. Reply Br. 5. Because at least one hinge
must be detached from the frame in the door removal position, the
combination does not meet the argued claim limitation.
7
Appeal2014-008783
Application 13/307,092
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2-5, 7-15, and 17-22, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
8