Ex Parte Haltmayer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

12933091 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/933,091 09/17/2010
46726 7590 08/18/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Werner Haltmayer
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.
2008P00710WOUS 6335
EXAMINER
TEFERA, HIWOT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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 WERNER HAL TMA YER, MATHIAS HERRMANN,
STEP AN KASBAUER, CLAUS KOTHER, JENS SCHLICHTMEIER,
MARTIN WEISSENBURGER, and MARK WOLDENBERG
Appeal2014-007610
Application 12/933,091
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the non-final
rejection of claims 16, 19, 20, 21, and 30-36 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Eksert (WO 00/49935, pub. Aug. 31, 2000) and Beck
(US 6,571,965 Bl, iss. June 3, 2003); claims 23 and 24 over Eksert, Beck,
and Graute (US 2008/0083678 Al, pub. April 10, 2008); and claims 28
and 29 over Eksert, Beck, and Landsiedel (US 2005/0109378 Al, pub. May
26, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007610
Application 12/933,091
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to dishwasher baskets. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 32, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
32. A crockery basket of a dishwasher, the crockery basket
compnsmg:
a plurality of lateral parts which frame a bottom of the
crockery basket;
at least one row of rods arranged on the bottom to hold
pieces of crockery, the at least one row of rods having a
plurality of individual rods;
a base wire attached to the at least one row of rods and
which forms an axis of rotation for the at least one row of rods,
the base wire including a first end and a second end which is
bent in a plane at an angle to the plane of the at least one row of
rods, wherein the plurality of individual rods project outwardly
perpendicularly from the base wire for a predetermined distance
and are then angled laterally from a vertical axis in a direction
along the axis of rotation;
a loose support element which supports the first end of the
base wire for longitudinal and rotational movement; and
a fixed support element which rotatably supports the second
end of the base wire for rotational movement and connected to
the bottom.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 16, 19-21, and 30-36
over Eksert and Beck
Appellants argue claims 16, 19--21, and 30-36 as a group. Appeal
Br. 8-16. We select claim 32 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Eksert and Beck discloses
all of the elements of claim 32. Non-Final Action 3--4. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
2
Appeal2014-007610
Application 12/933,091
art at the time of the invention to modify Eksert with a connecting wire that
connects the individual rods together as taught by Beck. Id. at 4. According
to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
provide additional support for plates above the bottom of the basket. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that the
applied art fails to disclose a fixed support element that rotatably supports
the second end of the base wire as claimed. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants
direct our attention to Figure 1 of their disclosure, where they point to bent
section 5.2b of base wire 5.2 and fixed support element 6.2. Id. at 12.
Appellants contend that the claimed arrangement provides an advantage over
the prior art by permitting the row of rods to rotate to the bottom of the
basket, thereby accommodating larger dishes and permitting arrangement of
dishes for better cleaning. Id.
Appellants also direct our attention to Figure 3 of Eksert, and assert
that locking hooks 6 are distinguishable from the second end/bent section of
the claimed invention. Id. at 13. Appellants argue that locking hooks 6 of
Eksert are not rotatably supported by a fixed bearing/support element. Id.
at 14. Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to show that locking
hooks 6 are rotatably supported by rotational joint 7. Id. Instead, Appellants
assert that locking hooks 6 are configured for fixed support by locking
bearings 2, 3, and 7. Id. at 15. Appellants assert that Eksert provides only
for fixed support of locking hook 6 by locking bearing 2, 3, 7. Id. Thus,
Appellants conclude that Eksert lacks disclosure for rotatably supporting
respective ends of a base wire using different bearing/support elements,
namely: (1) a loose bearing/support on one end; and (2) a fixed
bearing/support element on the opposite end. Id. at 16.
3
Appeal2014-007610
Application 12/933,091
In response, the Examiner states that Eksert shows that locking
hooks 6 are configured for fixed support by locking bearings 2, 3, and 7.
Ans. 2-3. The Examiner observes that: (1) when the row of rods is in the
collapsed position, locking hooks 6 are fixed to bearings 7 and 3; and (2)
when the row of rods is in the upright position, locking hooks 6 are fixed to
bearing 7 and latch 2. Id. at 3, citing Eksert, Fig. 1.
The Examiner points out that Appellants' drawings do not clearly
show any structural difference between "loose" bearing 5.2a and "fixed"
bearing 5.2b. Ans. 3. In view of the lack of detail provided by Appellants'
disclosure, the Examiner states that it is unclear how Appellants'
bearing/support elements differ from the prior art. Id. Thus, the Examiner
takes the position that element 7 of Eksert satisfies the claim limitations
directed to both "loose" and "fixed" bearings. Id. The Examiner notes that
the claim merely requires that the bearing is "fixed," but does not necessarily
require that it is "fixed" in relation to base wire 5.2. Id. Thus, a "fixed"
bearing could be fixed by being attached to other structural elements of the
dishwasher rack than base wire 5.2. Id. at 4.
Eksert is directed to a dishwashing machine basket with racks that can
be folded to accommodate small and large dishes. Eksert, p. 1, 11. 4---6.
Eksert discloses a rack wire 8 with U-shaped locking hooks 6 at both ends.
Id., p. 3, 11. 2-11. Eksert also discloses locking bearings 2, 3 formed at a 90-
degree angle to each other. Id., p. 3, 11. 12-16. Eksert further discloses a
rotational joint 7 disposed between the two locking bearings 2 and 3. Id. In
operation:
The racks (8) are mounted on the rotational joint (7) from
their end sections in order to keep the rack holding assembly (1)
at the bottom and the locking hooks ( 6) bent in a U-form at the
4
Appeal2014-007610
Application 12/933,091
top. The group of two rack holding assemblies (1) and two
racks (8) placed on the formers, is attached on the basket wires
vertically by means of their wire bearings (4) in such a manner
that it occupies ~ of the basket area.
When the racks (8) are in vertical position, the pivoting arm
( 5), which is perpendicular to the plane formed by the locking
hooks ( 6), vertical locking bearing (2) and rack (8) rods, is in
horizontal, i.e. folded position on the bottom basket wires. If
one of the racks (8) is desired to be folded, it will be sufficient
just to rotate the pivoting arm (5). In this case, the locking
hook (6) inside the vertical locking bearing (2), projects out of
this bearing (2) and enters into the horizontal locking bearing
(3) with a 90° angle. Before the motion starts, the pivoting arm
folded down on the basket wires, rotates to vertical position.
Eksert, p. 3, 1. 23 -p. 4, 1. 6. We have reviewed Figure 1 ofEksert. The
portion of wire 8 that extends between locking hooks 6 on either end rests
upon, is supported by, and rotates within rotational joint 7. See Eksert,
Fig. 1. We agree with the Examiner that such arrangement satisfies the
"loose support element" limitation of claim 32. With respect to the
limitation directed to a "fixed support element" that "rotatably supports" the
base wire, we note that the manner in which the support element is "fixed"
nevertheless allows for rotation of the base wire. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants' Specification and drawings lack sufficiently
detailed disclosure to patentably distinguish the structure of support
element 6.2 from the structure depicted in Figure 1 of Eksert. For this
reason, we agree with the Examiner that rotational joint 7 of Eksert may be
considered "fixed" in that it is fixedly attached to other structural elements
of rack holding assembly 1. See Eksert, Fig. 1.
Appellants' challenge to the Examiner's proposed combination is
limited to arguing limitations that are allegedly missing from the applied art.
5
Appeal2014-007610
Application 12/933,091
See Appeal Br. 16. Appellants do not otherwise appear to argue that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to combine Eksert
and Beck in a predictable manner, or would have lacked the motivation to do
so. Id.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims
16, 19--21, and 30-36.
Unpatentability of Claims 23, 24, 28, and 29
Claims 23, 24, 28, and 29 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 32. Claims App. In traversing the rejection of these claims,
Appellants rely on the same arguments that we previously considered and
found unpersuasive with respect to the rejection of claim 32. Appeal Br. 16-
17.
For essentially the same reasons articulated above with respect to
claim 32, we sustain the rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, and 29.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16, 19--21, 23, 24, and
28-36 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6