Ex Parte Laible et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

12525561 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/525,561 08/03/2009
46726 7590 09/14/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karl-Friedrich Laible
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.
2007P00347WOUS 9173
EXAMINER
DOYLE, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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 KARL-FRIEDRICH LAIBLE, FRANK PLACKE,
CLAUDIA RUPP, MATTHIAS STAHL,
HELMUT STEICHELE, and ULRICH VAN PELS
Appeal2014-008850
Application 12/525,561
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Karl-Friedrick Laible et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 9--13, 15, 17, and 19--22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Laible and Lee. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-008850
Application 12/525,561
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
9. A refrigerating device comprising:
a body;
a door;
a pair of telescopic extension elements, each telescopic
extension element being secured to the body and having a
movable rail;
a carrier for refrigerated products, the carrier having lateral
sides each defining a horizontally oriented shoulder;
a plurality of adapters each anchored directly to a
respective one of the movable rails, the adapters securing the
carrier to the movable rails of the telescopic extensions elements
and the pair of telescopic extension elements being operable to
permit the carrier to move outwardly relative to the body and to
retract inwardly relative to the body; and
a pair of covers, each cover substantially concealing at
least a portion of a respective telescopic extension element, and
each cover being clamped to and sandwiched between the
movable rail of the respective telescopic extension element and
the respective adapter anchored to the movable rail, wherein each
of the shoulders directly engages a respective one of the adapters.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Laible and Lee disclose or suggest all of the
limitations of independent claim 9. See Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Liable discloses a "the carrier having lateral sides (8)
each defining a horizontally oriented shoulder (34)." Id. at 2.
Appellants argue that "Laible' s vertical upper wall portion 8 does not
define Laible's base plate 34," as would be required by the Examiner's
interpretation of the claim. Appeal Br. 5. Responding to this argument, the
Examiner "notes that Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-
2
Appeal2014-008850
Application 12/525,561
webster.com/dictionary/define) 'define'= to show or describe (someone or
something) clearly and completely." Ans. 7. Using this definition of
"define," the Examiner "maintains that carrier of Laible teaches the
horizontal oriented shoulder (i.e. base plate 34) defined thereon as is
reasonably understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art." Id. (footnote
omitted).
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the Examiner
has applied the broadest construction of the claim term "define," this
construction is not consistent with the Specification, which describes the
horizontally oriented shoulders 12 as built in the side walls 11. See Spec. 3.
In this case the broadest reasonable definition of the claim term "define," as
that term would be understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the
• ,• • ,,, ,. 1 ,1 1• •, ,.....,., "J. .r • 1 ,
mvenuon, 1s --w nx or marK me nmns or. 1vierrzam-weosrer.com,
http://www.merriam-webster/dictionary/define (last accessed September 8,
2016). Applying this claim construction, it is clear that Laible's lateral sides
(8) do not define a horizontally oriented shoulder as required by claim 9.
Thus, the Examiner's finding is in error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 9, and claims 10-13, 15, 17, and 19--22, which depend therefrom.
3
Appeal2014-008850
Application 12/525,561
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9--13, 15, 17, and 19--22 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
4