Ex Parte Eveland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2013

11329203 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2013)

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.
11/329,203 01/11/2006 Michael J. Eveland EVE005-2099 6675
7590 06/12/2013
Whirlpool Patents Company - MD 0750
Suite 102
500 Renaissance Drive
St. Joseph, MI 49085
EXAMINER
ING, MATTHEW W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2013 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 MICHAEL J. EVELAND,
RUSS B. PETER, and DENNIS E. WINDERS
____________

Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT. A DANIELS, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejections of
claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13, and 15-19. App. Br. 4. Claims 11, 12, 14, and 20 are
cancelled and claims 4-8 are objected. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet;
a liner arranged in the cabinet, said liner defining a fresh food
compartment;
a door pivotally mounted relative to the cabinet, said door
including an outer shell and an inner liner;
a chiller compartment arranged on the inner liner of the door,
said chiller compartment including top, bottom, rear and side walls
that collectively define a storage cavity, said bottom wall including a
mounting member;
a chiller compartment door pivotally mounted relative to the
chiller compartment, said chiller compartment door being shiftable
between an open position wherein the storage cavity is exposed and a
closed position wherein the storage cavity is covered; and
a storage compartment, for retaining beverage containers, said
storage compartment including a front wall portion, a rear wall
portion, a bottom wall portion and opposing side wall portions that
collectively define a storage area including an inlet portion and an
outlet portion, a plurality of divider walls establishing a serpentine
path extending from the inlet portion to the outlet portion and, a
mounting element arranged on an underside of the bottom wall
portion, said mounting element being adapted to interengage with the
mounting member to detachably mount the storage compartment in
the storage cavity of the chiller compartment.

REJECTIONS
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Holland (US 4,586,633; iss. May 6, 1986).
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, § l03(a) as
unpatentable over Winders (US 6,694,770 B2; iss. Feb. 24, 2004) and
Holland.
App
App

Clai
recit
mou
the b
mem
that
porti
elem
coul
beca
elem
Exam
Figu
eal 2011-0
lication 11
ms 15-19 a
The Exa
ed in claim
nting elem
ottom wal
ber of a ch
mounting
on “A”. A
ents 68 do
d be said t
use the ter
ents 68 ar
iner’s fin
re 11 of H
05533
/329,203
s anticipa
miner foun
15 includ
ent (cantil
l portion a
iller comp
elements 6
ns. 7. Th
not direct
o be arrang
m “on” ca
e proximat
dings are b
olland and
AN
ted by Hol
d that Ho
ing front,
ever arms
nd capabl
artment.
8 are arran
e Examine
ly contact
ed on an u
n be read t
e the botto
est under
from Figu
3
ALYSIS
land
lland discl
rear, side,
68) that is
e of interen
Ans. 3. In
ged on an
r further f
the bottom
nderside
o merely d
m wall po
stood from
re 3 of Ho

oses a stor
and bottom
arranged
gagement
particular
underside
ound that e
wall, mo
of the bott
enote pro
rtion “A”
the Exam
lland, bot
age comp
wall por
on an unde
with a mo
, the Exam
of the bo
ven if the
unting ele
om wall po
ximity and
. Ans. 6, 7
iner’s ann
h reproduc
artment as
tions and
rside of
unting
iner foun
ttom wall
mounting
ments 68
rtion “A”
mounting
. The
otations o
ed below:

a
d

f

Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203

4
Figure 11 shows a bottom portion of the storage rack assembly and
Figure 3 shows both portions of the rack assembly 14, 16.
Appellants argue that Holland’s cantilever arms 68 are not arranged
on an underside of the bottom wall 66 of the rack assembly 10. Reply Br. 5.
In particular, Appellants argue that, at most, cantilever arms 68 project away
from and extend generally parallel with the bottom wall 66 as best seen in
Figure 3 of Holland. Appellants further argue that the term “on” would be
understood by a skilled artisan to mean a position in contact with a surface
of an object such as the underside of the bottom wall portion and not merely
denoting proximity as the Examiner has interpreted that term. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner’s finding that Holland discloses a mounting element
“arranged on an underside of the bottom wall portion” is not supported by a
preponderance of evidence. The Examiner found that the lower base frame
members 66 form a bottom wall portion and denotes this element with letter
“A” on Figure 11 as annotated in the Answer. We agree with Appellants
that cantilever arm 68 extends from a side of bottom wall 66 as illustrated in
Figures 3 and 11 of Holland, rather than being “arranged on an underside of
the bottom wall” 66 as required by claim 15. The Examiner’s interpretation
of the term “on” as denoting proximity is inconsistent with an ordinary,
customary meaning of that term and Appellants’ Specification. An ordinary,
customary meaning of the term “on” includes “a function word to indicate
position in or in contact with an outer surface.” See Merriam-Webster.com,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on (last viewed June 3, 2013).
Appellants disclose that the storage/dispensing compartment includes a front
wall, rear wall, bottom wall, and opposing side walls, and mounting element
230 that is arranged on an underside of the bottom wall 168 to position and
Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203

5
secure the storage compartment in the chiller compartment. Spec. 3, ll. 12-
15; Spec. 8, ll. 3-6; Spec. 9, ll. 9-14; fig. 3. Appellants illustrate mounting
element 230 as physically in contact with and supported by the underside of
bottom wall portion 168. See Figure 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 15 or claims 16-18, which depend therefrom.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 13 as unpatentable over Winders and Holland
Appellants argue claims 1, 9, 10, and 13 as a group and separately
argue claims 2 and 3. App. Br. 10-14. We select claim 1 as representative
of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13
The Examiner found that Winders discloses a refrigerator including a
chiller compartment 16 on an inner liner of a refrigerator door and a storage
compartment (tray 34) with a mounting element 60 on an underside of a
bottom wall portion of the storage compartment 34 for engaging a mounting
member 54 on the chiller compartment 16, but the storage compartment 34
lacks an inlet and outlet portion and a plurality of divider walls that form a
serpentine path between the inlet and outlet portions. Ans. 4. The Examiner
found that Holland teaches a storage compartment (rack 10) with inlet and
outlet portions and divider walls that form a serpentine path and determined
that it would have been obvious to substitute Holland’s storage compartment
in Winders to allow storage and dispensing of beverage containers. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide an apparent
reason to combine the prior art references in the manner suggested and has
improperly relied on the present invention as the motivation or reason for the
combination. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue that Winders
addresses problems of chiller compartments for domestic refrigerators while
Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203

6
Holland is directed to replacing complex, expensive wire frame stacks in a
vending machine with a relatively light weight molded stack and there is no
apparent reason for a skilled artisan to look to vending machines when
designing a chiller compartment for a domestic refrigerator. App. Br. 12.
Appellants further argue that it would seem logical to replace the entire
chiller compartment 16 of Winders with the entire cabinet 12 of Holland but
the Examiner is proposing to install only the rack portions 14, 16 of Holland
in the chiller compartment 16 of Winders. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
stated reason for substituting Holland’s storage compartment (rack 10) for
Winders’s storage compartment (tray 34) to permit storage and dispensing of
beverage containers in the chiller. Nor do these arguments persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s proposal to substitute the entire storage compartment
of Holland for the storage compartment of Winders. Ans. 10-11. The test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references would suggest
to a skilled artisan and not whether features of the references are physically
combinable. Appellants’ arguments also do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s findings that Winders teaches a chiller and storage compartment
for a refrigerator and thus is within Appellants’ field of endeavor of storage
and dispensing compartments for beverage containers in a refrigerator while
Holland teaches a storage compartment for dispensing beverages and thus is
reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Appellants of providing a
beverage storage and dispensing compartment in a refrigerator. Ans. 10.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13.

Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203

7
Claims 2 and 3
The Examiner found that Winders as modified by Holland teaches a
mounting member (opening 54) in the bottom of the chiller compartment
that includes a support platform (horizontal portions of cantilever arm 68)
spaced from and attached to the bottom wall of the chiller compartment and
a locking member (tabs at front ends of arm 68). Ans. 5, 12-13.
Appellants argue that claim 2 calls for the mounting member, which is
included on a bottom wall of the chiller compartment, to include a support
platform and the Examiner’s findings regarding Holland’s cantilever arm 68
relate to mounting elements, not mounting members. As a result, Appellants
argue that the Examiner has not shown that Winders’s mounting member
(openings 54) includes a support platform. Reply Br. 7-8. We agree.
The Examiner’s finding that the cantilever arm 68 of Holland is a
support platform is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Claim 2
calls for a mounting member, which is part of the bottom wall of the chiller
compartment, to include a support platform that is spaced from and attached
to the bottom wall of the chiller compartment. The Examiner found that the
openings 54 in the bottom wall of Winders’s chiller compartment (fig. 3) are
a mounting member that engages mounting elements (tabs/hooks 60) that
protrude from the cantilever arms 68 of Holland’s storage rack. Ans. 11-12.
The Examiner’s apparent treatment of Holland’s cantilever arm 68 as part of
the mounting element of the storage compartment that engages a mounting
member (openings 54) on the bottom wall of Winders’s chiller compartment
does not explain how the openings 54 in the bottom wall of Winders’s
chiller compartment 16 include a support platform that is spaced from and
attached to a bottom of the chiller compartment. The cantilever arms 68 are
Appeal 2011-005533
Application 11/329,203

8
part of Holland’s storage rack 10 and the mounting element that includes
Winders’s hooks/tabs 60 protruding from them under the Examiner’s
modification. Ans. 11-12. Claim 2 recites that the mounting member of the
bottom wall of the chiller compartment includes a support platform and the
Examiner has not established that the openings 54 of the chiller
compartment bottom wall also include a support platform. We do not
sustain the rejection of claim 2 or claim 3 that depends therefrom.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13 and REVERSE
the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 15-19.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh