Ex Parte Gose et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2008

10295850 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS E. GOSE and FORREST F. WING
____________

Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: December 12, 2008
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and STEFAN
STAICOVICI Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas E. Gose et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 17, and 21.1

1 Claims 7-9 and 19-20 are objected to by the Examiner as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim and otherwise indicated as being
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 7-9 and 19-20 are not part
of the instant appeal.

Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

Claims 15 and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed towards the mounting
arrangement of handles 60, 61 of the handle arrangement 1 to the doors 15,
18 of the refrigerator 2 (Spec. 5, ll. 3-5; Spec. 6, ll. 1-3; fig. 1). First, a
plurality of base members 70 (door clip members) are mounted to each door
15 and 18 (Spec. 6, ll. 16-18 and figs. 2 and 7). Second, a pair of handle clip
members 75 are mounted within the first and second end portions 65, 66 of
the handles 60, 61 (Spec. 6, ll. 18-20 and figs. 2 and 7). Finally, the handles
60, 61 are laid over the refrigerator doors such that the base members 70
mate with the handle clip members 75 to establish a slide and snap lock
connection (Spec. 2, ll. 18-19).

Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:

1. A refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet defining an interior compartment;
at least one door, having a front face portion, pivotally mounted
to the cabinet for selectively accessing the interior
compartment; and
a handle assembly for pivoting the door relative to the cabinet,
said handle assembly including:
at least first and second base members fixed to the door
at spaced locations along the front face portion;
2
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

at least first and second handle clip members; and
a handle member including first and second end portions
separated by an intermediate portion, said first and
second handle clip members being respectively mounted
to the first and second end portions of the handle
member, the first end portion of the handle member
being positioned over the first base member, while the
second end portion of the handle member is positioned
over the second base member wherein, upon shifting of
the handle member relative to the first and second base
members, the first and second base members and the first
and second handle clip members include relative tapered
surface portions that become engaged and co-act to
increasingly draw said handle member against the front
face portion of the door and secure the handle member to
the door, with the intermediate portion being spaced from
the front side of the door to enable the handle to be
grasped in order to selectively open and close the door.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Meyers US 5,303,445 Apr. 19, 1994
Worrell US 2003/0106185 A1 Jun. 12, 2003

3
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

The Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6,
10-14, 16-17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Worrell
in view of Meyers.

THE ISSUE
Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
teachings of Meyers disclose connecting a handle to a front portion of a plate
having tapered surfaces that become engaged and co-act to “increasingly
draw” the handle member against the front portion of the plate?
For the reasons set forth in our discussion below, we are persuaded by
the Appellants’ arguments.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection.

FINDINGS OF FACTS
Worrell
We make the following findings of fact (FF) with respect to Worrell:
1. Worrell discloses a mounting arrangement of a handle 12 to a
refrigerator door panel 16 (¶ 1).
2. The mounting arrangement includes a plurality of stud members 18
(door clip members) that are attached to the door panel 16 (¶ 14 and
fig. 2).
3. Each stud member 18 includes a shank portion 20 and a head portion
22, wherein the head portion 22 has a tapered surface (¶ 14 and figs. 2
and 5).
4
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

4. The mounting arrangement further includes a pair of fitments 10
(handle clip members) that are each fastened with screws 28 to an end
of the handle 12 (¶ 15 and figs. 1 and 3).
5. Each fitment 10 includes a slot 38 that has a tapered surface (¶ 16 and
fig. 5).
6. When mounting the handle 12 to the door panel 16 the tapered surface
of the head portion 22 of the stud member 18 (door clip members)
contacts (engages) the tapered surface of the slot 38 of the fitment 10
(handle clip members) (¶ 16 and fig. 5).
7. Each fitment 10 (handle clip members) is locked into position by
snap-fitting a key 26 having a shank portion 48 and a head portion 50
into apertures 44 and 46, respectively (¶ 17 figs. 4 and 5).
8. When the shank portion 48 of the key 26 is snap-fit into aperture 44
and the head portion 50 of the key 26 is snap-fit into aperture 46, the
tapered surface of the fitments 10 (handle clip members) is urged
towards the tapered surface of the stud members 18 (base members)
fig. 5).
9. The Examiner agrees that Worrell does not disclose that, “the tapered
surface portions [are] engaged and co-act to increasingly draw the
handle member against the front face portion of the door” (Ans. 2 4)
(underlining added).

2 We refer herein to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed March 19,
2007, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed December 10, 2007, and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed October 10, 2007
5
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

Meyers
We make the following findings of fact (FF) with respect to Meyers:
10. Meyers discloses a trowel arrangement having a blade 26, a support
28, and a handle 30 (col. 4, ll. 61-62 and fig. 1).
11. The support 28 extends substantially over the length of the blade 26
and includes a plurality of extensions 36 that have outwardly beveled
ends 42 (col. 5, ll. 31-32, 38-40, and 48-50 and fig. 1).
12. The width 46 of the support 28 may be tapered over the length of the
support 28 (col. 5, ll. 63-65 and fig. 3).
13. The handle 30 includes a channel 80 that is dimensioned to
correspond with the width of the support 28, that is, the width of the
channel 80 decreases over the length of the channel 80 (col. 6, ll. 37-
40 and fig. 8).
14. The flange-like lips 98 of the channel 80 are placed under the
extensions 36 such that the handle 30 is precluded from being
displaced upwardly away from the blade 26 (col. 6, ll. 60-63 and
fig. 7).
15. When mounting the handle 30 to the blade 26, as the handle 30 is slid
along the support 28, the channel 80 tightens about support 28 until
the handle 30 is wedged on the support 28 (col. 6, ll. 56-59).
16. The height of the channel 80 and the height of the extensions 36 of the
support 28 do not vary along their respective lengths.

6
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
To support an obviousness rejection all words in a claim must be
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art. In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
The Examiner has the initial burden of showing a prima facie case of
obviousness, and the Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to
demonstrate error in the Examiner's position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[t]o reject claims in an application under section
103, an examiner must show an unrebutted prima facie case of
obviousness.... On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.") (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

DISCUSSION
Each of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 17, and 21 requires base members and
handle clip members having tapered surfaces to interact (engage) in such a
manner that upon sliding the handle relative to the refrigerator door the
handle is drawn increasingly against the front face portion of the door.
Worrell discloses a mounting arrangement of a handle to a refrigerator
panel (door) using base members (stud members 18) and handle clip
members (fitments 10) (FF 1, 2, and 4). Each of the base members (stud
members 18) and the handle clip members (fitments 10) has a tapered
surface (FF 3 and 5). When mounting the handle to the refrigerator door the
tapered surface of the base members (stud members 18) contacts (engages)
7
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

the tapered surface of the handle clip members (fitments 10) (FF 6) and the
key locks in position the stud members 18 (base members) and the fitments
10 (handle clip members) (FF 7). A person of ordinary skill in the art would
readily appreciate that when the shank portion 48 of the key 26 is snap-fit
into aperture 44 and the head portion 50 of the key 26 is snap-fit into
aperture 46, the tapered surface of the fitments 10 (handle clip members) is
urged towards the tapered surface of the stud members 18 (base members)
(FF 8), hence when securing the handle to the door in the arrangement of
Worrell, the handle is urged away from the face of the door rather than
towards the face of the door.
As such, according to the Examiner, Worrell does not disclose that,
“the tapered surface portions [are] engaged and co-act to increasingly draw
the handle member against the front surface portion of the door” (FF 9)
(underlining added). Therefore, the Examiner looks to the teachings of
Meyers to satisfy the above mentioned limitation. Meyers discloses a
mounting arrangement between a blade and a handle (FF 10). The handle
and the blade have tapered surfaces (FF 12 and 13) that become engaged in a
wedging relationship upon mounting the handle to the blade (FF 14).
According to the Examiner, Meyers shows a handle member mounted to a
plate that, “include tapered surface portions that become engaged and co-act
to increasingly draw the handle member against the front face portion of the
plate” (Ans. 4). Therefore, using the teachings of Meyers, the Examiner
finally concludes that,
it would have been obvious to modify the structure of Worrell, as
taught by Meyers, by having the tapered surface portions engaged and
co-act[ing] to increasingly draw the handle member against the front
8
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

face portion of the door in order to prevent accidental or unwanted
disengagement between the handle and the door. (Ans. 4).

The Appellants argue that neither Worrell nor Meyers discloses a
structure which “increasingly draws” the handle closer to the door face upon
shifting the handle (App. Br. 9). Specifically, the Appellant argues that the
wedging action established between the handle 30 and the support 28 of
Meyers “only co-acts in the direction of travel of the handle against support
28, and does not, in any way, draw the handle to the surface of the trowel
blade” (App. Br. 10) (bold and underlining in original). Between the
Appellants and the Examiner we find that the Appellants have the better
argument.
In the arrangement of Meyers, because the widths of both the channel
80 and the support 28 are tapered over their respective lengths (FF 12 and
13), the handle 30 and the support 28 are wedged along their respective
widths in a longitudinal direction. Furthermore, Meyers does not disclose
that the height of the channel 80 or the height of the extensions 36 of the
support 28 vary along their respective lengths (FF 16). Therefore, because
the tightening of the handle and the support is only caused by the reduction
in width along the lengths of the handle and the support, the wedging action
is also limited only to the width of the handle and the support, and does not
include a vertical component that would “increasingly draw” the handle
towards the support. As such, when the handle 30 slides over the support 28
a wedging action cannot develop between the ceiling 82 of the channel 80
and the top surface of the extensions 36. Therefore, in the arrangement of
Meyers, the handle 30 cannot be “increasingly drawn” towards the support
28 of the blade 26, as required by the claimed invention.
9
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

Furthermore, although we agree with the Examiner that due to the
wedging action in Meyers the normal force developed between the co-acting
surfaces of the channel 80 and the extensions 36 of the support 28 includes
an x-axis force and an y-axis force (Ans. 6), we disagree that the y-axis force
would “increasingly draw” the handle member against the support 28.
Meyers specifically discloses that the flange-like lips 98 of the channel 80
are placed under the extensions 36 such that the handle 30 is precluded from
being displaced upwardly away from the blade 26 (FF 13). Therefore,
although a y-axis force develops, because the handle 30 is precluded from
being displaced in a vertical direction, the handle 30 cannot be “increasingly
drawn” towards the support 28 of the blade 26, as required by the claimed
invention.
For the above stated reasons, we conclude that the Examiner
has not discharged the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 17, and 21.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 17, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Worrell in view of Meyers is
reversed.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 17, and
21 is reversed.

REVERSED

10
Appeal 2008-4398
Application 10/295,850

JRG

DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC
12471 DILLINGHAM SQUARE, #301
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192

11