Ex Parte Haltmayer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201713798245 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/798,245 03/13/2013 Werner Haltmayer 2013P00088US 4815 46726 7590 02/21/2017 RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn EXAMINER 100 Bosch Boulevard NEW BERN, NC 28562 MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 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 WERNER HALTMAYER and DAVID HITE Appeal 2015-0052781 Application 13/798,2452 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 32 and 34—38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision considers Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 6, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 17, 2015), as well as the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 25, 2014), Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed Dec. 1, 2014), and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 27, 2015). 2 Appellants identify BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-005278 Application 13/798,245 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates to “a freestanding domestic appliance, in particular a domestic dish washer.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal and is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A freestanding domestic appliance, comprising: at least one mounting aid having at least two functional parts arranged on a front side of the mounting aid, with a first one of the functional parts being configured as a hose holder, and a second one of the functional parts being arranged at a height below the first functional part and configured as an upwardly open hook for mounting additional parts; a fastening leg extending in opposite direction to the at least two functional parts; a fastening contour arranged on the fastening leg and on a backside of the mounting aid at a height above the first functional part for holding the mounting aid on the freestanding domestic appliance; and a height stop provided on the fastening leg of the mounting aid, wherein the height stop has a stop surface, said stop surface being inclined continuously toward the front side of the mounting aid for preventing an insertion of the freestanding domestic appliance into an installation niche without prior removal of the mounting aid from the freestanding domestic appliance. REJECTION Claims 1—32 and 34—38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Busing (US 2011/0012485 Al, pub. Jan. 20, 2011).3 3 Appellants and the Examiner refer to Busing as “Busing.” 2 Appeal 2015-005278 Application 13/798,245 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the height stop has a stop surface, said stop surface being inclined continuously toward the front side of the mounting aid.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner relies on Busing’s reinforcing rib 28 for disclosing the height stop (Final Act. 2), and the Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a more inclined height stop on Busing’s [sic] device, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent” {id. at 3). Appellants challenge the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Busing’s rib to be more inclined. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellants assert that “reinforcing rib 28 or item 27 [] would have a shape (continuous incline stop surface feature) such that the insertion motion does not decelerate abruptly.” Id. Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Contrary to the Examiner’s rejection, there is a correlation between the claimed shape of the stop surface of the height stop and its function. As set forth in Appellants’ Specification, “the stop surface with the mentioned range of inclination angle ensures that when inserting this freestanding domestic appliance the insertion motion does not decelerate abruptly but comes to a standstill in a damped manner in a region of the contact between mounting aid and installation niche.” Spec. | 8. The Examiner’s position that the proposed modification to Busing is merely a change in shape or form without changing function is not supported, and, as a result, the Examiner has not established that an inclined shape would be an obvious variation to the shape of Busing’s rib 28. For 3 Appeal 2015-005278 Application 13/798,245 this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or claims 2—32 and 34—38, which depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—32 and 34—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation