Ex Parte Fitz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2009

10766478 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JULIUS BLUM GESELLSCHAFT MBH
____________________

Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: August 18, 2009
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON, and SALLY G. LANE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Julius Blum
Gesellschaft mbH (JBG), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

2
claims 27-35 and 40-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.
References Relied on by the Examiner
Humphrey 3,075,820 Jan. 29, 1963
Rock et al. (Rock) 4,090,753 May 23, 1978
AT ‘664 AT 404664 B Jan. 25, 1999
Murdoch NZ 507,687 Sep. 11, 2001

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 27-34 and 46-50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock.
The Examiner rejected claims 40-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murdoch, Humphrey, Rock, and AT ‘664.
The Examiner rejected claim 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention.

The Invention
The invention relates to a drawer having drawer frame members and
an inwardly angled front panel. The front panel is adjustable relative to
frame members and is formed of two separate panel portions that are also
adjustable relative to one another. (Spec. 1:3-13.)
Independent claim 27 is reproduced below (Claims App’x 1:1-7):
27. A drawer comprising:
two drawer frame members;
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

3
a rear wall attached to said drawer frame members;
a drawer bottom between said drawer frame members; and
a front facing panel adjustably attached to said drawer frame
members, said front facing panel including at least two panel portions
adjustable relative to one another and arranged so that said front
facing panel is angled inwardly.
B. ISSUES
1. Has JBG shown that the Examiner erred in determining that the
combined teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock suggest a drawer
with a front facing panel that is adjustable with respect to drawer frame
members?
2. Has JBG shown that the Examiner erred in determining that the
combined teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock suggest a front
facing panel that is formed of two panel portions that are adjustable with
respect to one another?
3. Has JBG shown that the Examiner was incorrect in determining
that claim 35 is indefinite?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Murdoch
1. Murdoch discloses a corner storage unit having a plurality of
boxlike containers or drawers 2 with a pair of side frame members 8 and 9
that enable the drawers to slide horizontally on a track mounted in the
storage unit. (Murdoch 4:31-5:28.)
2. Each drawer includes front facing paneling 10 that includes a
pair of panel portions that are angled inwardly. (Id. at Fig. 3.)
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

4
3. Murdoch does not describe that the paneling is adjustably
attached to the frame members or that the panel portions that make up the
paneling are adjustable relative to one another.
Rock
4. Rock discloses fastening devices for the front panel of a drawer
that renders the front panel adjustable relative to supporting components of
the drawer. (Rock 1:4-11.)
5. Rock discloses that each fastening device 3 includes retaining
part 4 and supporting part 5. (Id. at 2:30-31.)
6. Each retaining part 4 is secured to one end of front panel 14.
(Id. at 2:57-60; Fig. 6.)
7. Each supporting part 5 is secured to guide rails 2. (Id. at 2:31-
34; 3:31-36.)
8. Although not shown in its figures, Rock discloses that its
drawer includes drawer side walls, i.e., frame members, wherein the guide
rails are attached to the frame members. (Id. at 2:17-20.)
9. Rock states (Id. at 1:12-20):
The object of such fastening devices, which are being used
more and more especially in modern kitchen designs, is to provide
fastening for the front panels of drawers or also for the front plates of
pull-out boards, which allows the moving and final adjustment of the
front panel in at least three-dimensions, so that even with bigger
tolerances that are incurred, for example during assembly of the guide
rails of the drawer, the front panel can be evenly and vertically
aligned.

10. Rock also discloses that its fastening devices provide
adjustment “in all directions” (Rock 1:53-55) and specifically refers to
sideways, i.e. horizontal, adjustment of its front panel (Rock 2:65-68).
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

5
Humphrey
11. Humphrey discloses an angled cabinet having a collection of
stacked drawers configured for placement in the corner of a room.
(Humphrey 2:13-31; Fig. 1.)
12. In Humphrey, one of the drawers includes a pair of radial walls
or panels 78, 80 that are each mitered so as to form a right angle corner
when attached and is reinforced by a block 82 which is screwed to the ends
of the radial walls. (Id. at 4:17-20.)
13. Humphrey further discloses that the cabinet and its drawers are
designed to be disassembled or “knocked down” so that the cabinet takes up
minimal space for transportation to and reassembly at a different location.
(Id. at 6:22-37.)
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The relevant inquiry in an obviousness analysis is what the combined
teachings of the references collectively would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art, not what the references individually expressly
disclose. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).
What references suggest is taken in the context of the knowledge, skill
and reasoning ability of one with ordinary skill in the art. Syntex (U.S.A)
LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by
way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

6
E. ANALYSIS
JBG argues the claims in three separate claim groupings: (1) claims
27, 28, 31-34, and 40-50; (2) claims 29 and 30; and (3) claim 35.
Claims 27, 28, 31-34, and 40-50
JBG argues dependent claims 28, 31-34, and 40-50 collectively with
independent claim 27. Claim 27 was rejected as unpatentable over the
combined teachings Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock.
We focus on the disputed limitations. The dispute centers on the
requirements in claim 27 directed to the adjustability of the front facing
panel. In particular, claim 27 requires a front facing panel that is
“adjustably attached to said drawer frame members[.]” (Claims App’x 1:5.)
The claim also requires that the front facing panel includes “at least two
panel portions adjustable relative to one another[.]” (Claims App’x 1:5-6.)
Thus, the claim includes two separate adjustability requirements for the front
facing panel, one involving the drawer frame and one involving separate
portions of the front panel.
The examiner found that Murdoch discloses all the limitations of
claim 27 except for the above-quoted adjustability requirements of the front
facing panel. (Ans. 3:14-4:5.) To make-up the deficiency, the Examiner
turned to the collective teachings of Humphrey and Rock and concluded that
making Murdoch’s inwardly angled front panel adjustable in the ways
required by claim 27 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. (Ans. 4:6-5:10.)
JBG argues each adjustability requirement of claim 27 separately.
JBG first argues that neither Humphrey nor Rock teach a front facing panel
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

7
that is adjustably attached to drawer frame members. (App. Br. 6:7-13 and
6:17-20.)
We reject JBG’s argument. Rock discloses fastening devices for the
front panel of a drawer that render the front panel adjustable relative to
supporting components of the drawer. (Rock 1:4-11.) In particular, Rock
discloses that each fastening device 3 includes retaining part 4 and
supporting part 5. (Id. at 2:30-31.) Each retaining part 4 is secured to one
end of front panel 14. (Id. at 2:57-60; Fig. 6.) Each supporting part 5 is
secured to guide rails 2. (Id. at 2:31-34; 3:31-36.) Although not shown in
its figures, Rock discloses that its drawer includes drawer side walls, i.e.,
frame members, wherein the guide rails are attached to the frame members.
(Id. at 2:17-20.) Furthermore, as explained in Rock (Id. at 1:12-20):
The object of such fastening devices, which are being used
more and more especially in modern kitchen designs, is to provide
fastening for the front panels of drawers or also for the front plates of
pull-out boards, which allows the moving and final adjustment of the
front panel in at least three-dimensions, so that even with bigger
tolerances that are incurred, for example during assembly of the guide
rails of the drawer, the front panel can be evenly and vertically
aligned.

Thus, Rock establishes that due to variability in the assembly of any
particular set of drawers, it is desirable to connect a drawer front panel to the
guide rails of drawer frame members via fastening devices that enable
alignment or adjustment of the front panel relative to the frame members.
We reject JBG’s argument that Rock does not disclose a front facing panel
of a drawer that is adjustably attached to drawer frame members.
Moreover, JBG does not explain why the benefit of an adjustable front
panel for a drawer, as taught in Rock, would not also have applied to the
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

8
front panel of Murdoch’s drawer. A person of ordinary skill in the art, who
is also a person of ordinary creativity, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007), would have readily recognized from Rock’s teachings
that making the front panel of a drawer adjustable enables alignment of the
panel with other portions of the drawer and drawer cabinet. A skilled artisan
would have known that the adjustment mechanism of Rock for the front
panel of Murdoch in relation to the drawer would have similar application in
Murdoch’s corner storage unit.
JBG also argues that neither Humphrey nor Rock teach a front facing
panel that includes at least two panel portions adjustable relative to one
another. (App. Br. 5:25-26 and 6:20-21.) According to JBG, there is no
motivation to modify Murdoch to include adjustable panel portions. (Id. at
6:23-27.)
JBG’s argument is misplaced. The argument is based on the express
teachings of Humphrey and Rock and ignores what the references would
have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill. The relevant
inquiry in an obviousness analysis is what the combined teachings of the
references collectively would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art, not what the references individually expressly disclose. See In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d at 750. What references suggest is taken in the context
of the knowledge, skill and reasoning ability of one with ordinary skill in the
art. Syntex (U.S.A) LLC, 407 F.3d at 1380.
Here, Humphrey discloses an angled cabinet having a collection of
stacked drawers configured for placement in the corner of a room.
(Humphrey 2:13-31; Fig. 1.) In Humphrey, one of the drawers includes a
pair of radial walls or panels 78 and 80 that are screwed together to form a
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

9
right angle corner. (Id. at 4:17-20.) Humphrey further discloses that the
cabinet and its drawers are designed to be disassembled or “knocked down”
so that the cabinet takes up minimal space for transportation to, and
reassembly at, a different location. (Id. at 6:22-37.) Thus, Humphrey
establishes that for a drawer which is configured for placement in a cabinet
corner, the inwardly angled panels that form the front of the drawer may be
separated from one another to facilitate disassembly and transport of the
drawers to a separate location for reassembly. In light of the teachings of
Humphrey, one with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
making the angled panel portions of Murdoch’s front panel separable from
one another would have allowed Murdoch’s drawer to be disassembled and
then reassembled in another location.
Furthermore, as discussed above, Rock teaches that due to tolerances
of drawer components, there is a degree of variability in how those
components fit together during assembly. To account for that variability,
Rock describes that its drawer components are connected together by
devices that allow for alignment of those components by adjusting their
position after assembly. Although Rock discloses that its adjustable
connections are between a drawer front panel and drawer frame members,
one with ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed that disclosure as
limited in its teaching value to the attachment of only those two components.
Indeed, a prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by
way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp., 755 F.2d at 907.
In this case, the level of ordinary skill in the art is such that one with
ordinary skill would have realized that the benefit of Rock’s adjustable
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

10
connection would have applied to connections other than those that are
particular to Rock’s invention. That is, a skilled artisan would have
reasonably recognized that other drawer components may be adjustably
connected to one another so that they may be evenly aligned after assembly
of the drawer. Applying the collective teachings of Humphrey and Rock to
the drawer of Murdoch suggests that the front panel of the drawer could be
composed of two separable panel portions that are adjustably connected to
one another such that they may be aligned after the drawer is assembled.
The adjustable drawer front panel that is suggested by the combined
teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock meets the corresponding
adjustability requirement in claim 27.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 27, 28,
31-34 and 46-50 as unpatentable over Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock. We
also sustain the rejection of claims 40-45 as unpatentable over Murdoch,
Humphrey, Rock, and AT ‘664.
Claims 29 and 30
Claims 29 and 30 are each dependent on claim 27 and add a
requirement directed to adjustability of the front panel portions in a
horizontal direction. Claim 29 adds the limitation “wherein said panel
portions are adjustable in the horizontal direction relative to said drawer
frame members.” (Claims App’x 1:10-11.) Claim 30 adds the limitation
“wherein said panel portions are adjustable in the horizontal direction
relative to each other.” (Claims App’x 1:12-13.)
The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock. In arguing the
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

11
rejection of those claims, JBG contends that Humphrey does not teach
adjustment of its front panel in a horizontal direction. (App. Br. 7:23-8:10.)
JBG’s argument is unpersuasive. In accounting for the adjustability
requirements of claim 29 and 30, the Examiner did not rely solely on the
teachings of Humphrey. Rather, the Examiner also pointed to Rock for its
“teaching of allowing two members of a drawer adjustably connected to one
another in the horizontal and vertical directions in order to overcome
manufacturing tolerances.” (Ans. 8:11-13.) Rock discloses that its
adjustment mechanisms provide adjustment “in all directions” (Rock 1:53-
55) and specifically refers to sideways, i.e., horizontal, adjustment of its
front panel (Rock 2:65-68). Taking those teachings of Rock together with
the above-noted teachings of Humphrey, and applying them to the drawer of
Murdoch, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as
obvious that Murdoch’s front panel would have been adjustable in the
horizontal direction in the ways required by claims 29 and 30. JBG has not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 29 and 30 based on the
combined teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock.
We sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 as unpatentable over
Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock.
Claim 35
The Examiner rejected claim 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention.
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

12
Claim 35 is dependent on claim 34, which is dependent on claim 33,
which in turn is dependent on claim 27. Claims 33, 34, and 35 are
reproduced below (Claims App’x 1:18-2:3):
33. The drawer of claim 27, wherein said panel portions are
connected together by a fitment.

34. The drawer of claim 33, wherein said fitment includes at
least two angle portions screwed to each other.

35. The drawer of claim 34, wherein a first one of said angle
portions has vertical slots, a second one of said angle portions has
horizontal and vertical slots, and a third one of said angle portions has
horizontal slots and round holes.

According to the Examiner, “[s]ince claim 34 recited ‘at least two
angle portions’ which is just two angle portions, the recitation in claim 35 of
a total of three angle portions renders the claim[] indefinite.” (Ans. 7:4-6.)
The term “at least two angle portions” in claim 34 does not limit the
number of angle portions to only two. That three angle portions are required
in claim 35 is fully consistent with the language “at least two.”
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 35 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
F. CONCLUSION
1. JBG has not shown that the Examiner erred in determining that
the combined teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock suggest a drawer
with a front facing panel that is adjustable with respect to drawer frame
members.
2. JBG has not shown that the Examiner erred in determining that
the combined teachings of Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock suggest a front
Appeal 2009-003248
Application 10/766,478

13
facing panel that is formed of two panel portions that are adjustable with
respect to one another.
3. JBG has shown that the Examiner was incorrect in determining
that claim 35 is indefinite.
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 27-34 and 46-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murdoch, Humphrey, and Rock is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 40-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murdoch, Humphrey, Rock, and AT ‘664 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 35 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ack

cc:

WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington DC 20005-1503