Ex Parte Flesch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12087548 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/087,548 12/19/2008
46726 7590 04/28/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastien Flesch
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.
2005P02469WOUS 1080
EXAMINER
CALVETTI, FREDERICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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 SEBASTIEN FLESCH, DIRK HOFFMEIER,
NICOLAS PETRAZOLLER, and PIERRE STEINER
Appeal 2014-004761
Application 12/087 ,548
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sebastien Flesch et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 26-31 and 33-51. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an operational module for a door of a
domestic appliance.
Claims 26, 49, and 51 are independent. Claim 26 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
Appeal2014-004761
Application 12/087,548
26. An operational module for a domestic appliance door
having a recess formed therein, the operating module including
at least one operational control, the operating module
comprising a body portion configured for at least partial
insertion into the recess of the domestic appliance door, and a
cover plate for covering at least a portion of a side edge of the
domestic appliance door, wherein the body portion is
configured to project forward and upward from the outer
surface of the domestic appliance door such that a front side
thereof lies partly in parallel to the outer surface of the domestic
appliance door, with a part of the body portion configured to
project down beyond the recess and on the outer surf ace of the
domestic appliance door.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 26-31 and 33-51 provisionally on the grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 19 of co-pending application No. 12/086,676 1;
(ii) claims 26-31 and 33-51 provisionally on the grounds of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 11 of co-pending application No. 12/087,5052;
(iii) claims 26-31 and 33-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bressler (US 4,255,640, issued Mar. 10, 1981), Tanaka
(US4,028,517,issuedJune7, 1977),andJanssen(EP 1507124A2,
published Feb. 16, 2005); and
1 Now US 8,393,319, issued Mar. 12, 2013.
2 Now US 8,558,143, issued Oct. 15, 2013.
2
Appeal2014-004761
Application 12/087,548
(iv) claim 51under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bressler, Tanaka, Janssen, and Bauer (WO 2004/065867 Al, published Aug.
5, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants do not present arguments directed to these provisional
rejections, but instead, during prosecution before the Examiner, requested
that a decision as to the appropriateness of the rejections be held in
abeyance. See Final Act. 3. As indicated in footnotes 1 and 2 above, co-
pending application Nos. 12/086,676 and 12/087,505 have each matured into
a patent. The claims in those issued patents appear to have been amended
subsequent to the Examiner last visiting this issue, and therefore, we are of
the opinion that it is best not to reach these rejections, and to allow the
Examiner to reconsider the rejections in iight of the claims as issued in those
patents.
Claims 26-31 and 33-50--0bviousness--Bressler/Tanaka/Janssen
Appellants argue these claims as a group, and do not present
arguments for the separate patentability of any of the claims. Br. 6-10. We
take claim 26 as representative of the group, and claims 27-31 and 33-50
stand or fall with claim 26.
Claim 26 recites, in part:
wherein the body portion is configured to project forward and
upward from the outer surface of the domestic appliance door
such that a front side thereof lies partly in parallel to the outer
surface of the domestic appliance door, with a part of the body
3
Appeal2014-004761
Application 12/087,548
portion configured to project down beyond the recess and on the
outer surf ace of the domestic appliance door.
The Examiner's position is that "Bressler teaches the location of the
panel or plate not to be critical," and as such, "[i]t would have been obvious
at the time of the invention to modify Bressler's plate or panel location by
disposing portions of it forward/upward/( down beyond the recess) in view of
the teachings of both Tanaka and Janssen." Final Act. 5-6, citing Bressler,
col. 2, 11. 58-59, Tanaka, Fig. 1, and Janssen, Figs. 1 and 2.
Appellants assert that "Bressler requires a keypad 6 that is integrated
into the door 4," and that based on this location, "the keypad 6 does not
project forward and upward from the outer surface of the microwave oven
door 4, or project down beyond the recess (in the domestic appliance door)
and on the outer surface of the domestic appliance door." Br. 8, citing
Bressler, Fig. 1. Appellants argue that Tanaka does not cure the deficiencies
of Bressier, because controi panei 6 is not provided in a recess on the door 3,
but instead is provided on a front top of oven body 1. Id. at 9-10, citing
Tanaka, col. 2, 11. 66----67; Fig. 2. Appellants also argue that "Janssen is
additionally deficient insofar as it discloses a display control panel 12
mounted on a door 3 that does not 'project forward and upward' from the
outer surface of the door 3." Id. at 10. As such, Appellants argue that
Janssen's control panel 12 does not include a front side that "'lies partly in
parallel' to the outer surface of the door 3, with a part of the body portion
configured to 'project down beyond the recess and on' the outer surface of
the door 3." Id.
4
Appeal2014-004761
Application 12/087,548
In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies how Janssen is being relied
upon and provides a side-by-side comparison of Appellants' Figure 4 and
Janssen's Figure 5. See Ans. 8-11.
Based on the Examiner's side-by-side comparison in the Answer, we
do not agree with Appellants' assertion that Janssen is deficient, inasmuch as
Figure 5 of Janssen shows the orientation of the portions of control panel 12
as recited. Specifically, as detailed by the Examiner, Janssen's control panel
12 includes a portion 16 that is configured to project forward and upward so
that a front side thereof, toward outer side 30 is partly in parallel to the outer
surface of the domestic appliance door. Ans. 10. The rightmost portion of
Janssen's element 16 is also configured to project down beyond the recess
and on the outer surface of the domestic appliance door 3. See id. at 11,
citing Janssen Figs. 1, 3 and 5. As such, Appellants' arguments fail to
persuade us of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the combined
teachings of Bressier, Tanaka, and Janssen, appiied as expiained by the
Examiner, render obvious the subject matter of claim 26.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 26 as being
unpatentable over Bressler, Tanaka, and Janssen is sustained. Claims 27-31
and 33-50 fall with claim 26.
Claim 51--0bviousness--Bressler/Tanaka/Janssen/Bauer
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claim 51 other than those advanced above with respect to claim 26. Br.
12-13. Because we are not persuaded by those arguments as discussed
supra, for the same reasons the rejection of claim 51 is sustained.
5
Appeal2014-004761
Application 12/087,548
DECISION
The rejection of claims 26-31 and 33-50 as being unpatentable over
Bressler, Tanaka, and Janssen is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 51 as being unpatentable over Bressler, Tanaka,
Janssen, and Bauer is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6