Ex Parte Heger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2013

11795592 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte BERND HEGER, THOMAS ST. QUINTIN, CRAIG
DUNCAN WEBSTER, and NATHAN WRENCH
____________________
Appeal 2011-002415
Application 11/795,592
Technology Center 3700
____________________
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, RICHARD E. RICE, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 20-24 and 30-39. Claims 1-19 have been
canceled. Claims 25-29, 40, and 41 have been objected to but indicated to
be directed to allowable subject matter. Claims 42-44 have been indicated to
be allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2011-002415
Application 11/795,592
2
The claims are directed to an ice maker. Claim 20, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
20. An ice maker comprising:
a frame;
a tray which is pivotable in the frame about an axis
and in which at least one compartment is formed; and
a flexible connecting line connecting the tray with
the frame extending in a curve about the pivot axis of the
tray.
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the rejection of claims 20-24 and 30-39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,112,540 (iss. Sep.
5, 2000, to Serrels et al.) (“Serrels”) and US 7,032,391 B2 (iss. Apr. 25,
2006, to Tremblay et al.) (“Tremblay”). Ans. 3-4.
OPINION
Claims 20-24 and 30-38
Appellants argue claims 20-24 and 30-38 as a group. App. Br. 5-6.
We select independent claim 20 as being representative. Therefore, claims
20-24 and 30-38 stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Serrels describes the invention as claimed
including a pivoting ice cube tray with a pivot axis, but Serrels fails to
describe the claimed flexible connecting line extending about that pivot axis.
Ans. 3. The Examiner relies upon Tremblay as describing a flexible
connecting line that extends in a curve about a longitudinal axis of the tray.
Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a skilled
artisan to modify Serrels’ ice cube tray with Tremblay’s connecting line,
Appeal 2011-002415
Application 11/795,592
3
which would “yield the predictable result of providing a compact
arrangement of the ice maker with the connecting line” that extends around
the pivot axis of the tray. Id.
Appellants do not dispute any of the factual findings upon which the
Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 20 is obvious. Rather,
Appellants argue that because Tremblay describes an ice tray that is fixed in
its frame, it fails to describe “the claimed flexible connecting line
‘connecting the tray with the frame extending in a curve about the pivot axis
of the tray.’” App. Br. 7. Appellants contend that “[w]ithout a pivot axis of
the tray, and without Appellants’ claims as a blueprint, it is not readily
apparent how Tremblay would lead [a skilled artisan] to modify Serrels.”
Reply Br. 2.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is
not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Moreover, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants unpersuasively focus on an alleged failing in
Tremblay’s teachings of a pivot axis for the tray, which is an element for
which the Examiner did not rely upon Tremblay. Therefore, Appellants’
argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner,
which is based on the combined teachings of Serrels as modified by
Appeal 2011-002415
Application 11/795,592
4
Tremblay. For this reason, we affirm the rejection of claims 20-24 and 33-
38.
Claim 39
Claim 39 is independent and recites limitations similar to those in
claim 20 along with additional limitations including:
a cable drum connected to the tray and housing the
flexible connecting line; and
a winding core connected to the tray, wherein the flexible
connecting line is looped in the cable drum around the winding
core.
Appellants initially argue that claim 39 is patentable for the same reasons
proffered for reversing the rejection of claim 20. App. Br. 7. We reject this
argument for the reasons expressed above in our analysis of claim 20.
Appellants also argue that neither Serrels nor Tremblay alone or in
combination disclose any “structure for housing a connecting line or
structure about which a connecting line is looped.” App. Br. 7. The
Examiner finds:
With regard to claim 39, again Tremblay et al is being
relied on to teach the flexible line, which is clearly shown in
Fig. 2 as being looped around the drive motor 42. The drive
motor 42 and housing 41 thus act as a cable drum to house the
connecting line.
In addition, it is well known to wind a connecting line
around or inside a core drum to provide a compact storage
arrangement. For example, garden hoses are stored in this
manner.
Ans. 4. Appellants do not address these findings in the Reply Brief or
elsewhere. See Reply Br. 1-2.
Our review of Tremblay confirms that its housing 41 (see Tremblay,
Fig. 1) does surround drive motor 42 and that the connecting line (see id.,
Appeal 2011-002415
Application 11/795,592
5
Fig. 2) appears to be looped around the drive motor and contained within the
housing 41. Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings
relating to the manner in which Tremblay teaches the limitations in claim 39
beyond those recited in claim 20. For this reason, we affirm the rejection of
claim 39.
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rejection of claims 20-24
and 33-39. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

msc