Ex Parte LAMBKIN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 2, 2019

13680439 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/680,439 11/19/2012
130348 7590 05/06/2019
Whirlpool Corporation/ McGarry Bair PC
2000 North M63
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
TODD WILLIAM LAMBKIN
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.
SUB-01882-US-NP 7268
EXAMINER
HEY AM OTO, AARON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2019 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):
patents@mcgarrybair.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PatentDocketing@w hirlpool. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD WILLIAM LAMBKIN and
JOEL MATTHEW SELLS 1
Appeal 2018-006286
Application 13/680,439
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a Decision on Appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's non-final rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-14. App. Br. 2.
"Claims 9 [ and] 15-19 have been withdrawn from consideration pursuant to
a restriction requirement." App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
1 "Whirlpool Corporation, having offices in Benton Harbor, Michigan
('Whirlpool') is the Applicant and the real party in interest of the present
application." App. Br. 2. We proceed on the basis that, for purposes of this
Appeal, Whirlpool is the "Appellant."
Appeal 2018-006286
Application 13/680,439
U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we find error in the
Examiner's rejections of these claims.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejections.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to a "door assembly for an oven."
Spec. ,-J 2. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 10 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
10. A door assembly for an oven comprising:
a rear frame having a flange defining an opening;
an innermost glass panel having a first pair of opposing
sides and a second pair of opposing sides;
a first pair of brackets coupled with the rear frame and
compressively retaining the first pair of opposing sides of the
innermost glass panel directly against the flange while the
second pair of opposing sides is not compressively retained by
the first pair of brackets; and
a second glass panel coupled with the first pair of
brackets;
wherein the innermost glass panel is spaced from the
second glass panel to form a vented air gap between the
innermost glass panel and the second glass panel.
REFERENCES
Katona US 4,206,338
(hereinafter "Katona '338")
Katona US 4,606,324
(hereinafter "Katona")
Puricelli US 5,387,258
June 3, 1980
Aug. 19, 1986
Feb. 7, 1995
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Puricelli and Katona.
2
Appeal 2018-006286
Application 13/680,439
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Puricelli, Katona, and Katona '338.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1---8 and 10---14
as unpatentable over Puricelli and Katona
Independent claims 1 and 10 each include the limitations of a "frame
having a flange" and an innermost glass panel situated "directly against the
flange." Emphasis added. When separately rejecting these two claims, the
Examiner relies on a similar analysis. See Non-Final Act. 2-4. For
simplicity, we address the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
The Examiner relies on Puricelli for disclosing frame 21 "having a
flange defining an opening" and on Katona for more clearly disclosing glass
panels that are "compressively retained against flange" 86. Non-Final Act.
2. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify
Puricelli with the compression of Katona in order to" (a) "reduce assembly
time" and (b) "further secure the panel [against] rattling." Non-Final Act. 2-
3. The Examiner also states that the "design change" involved "could be
fully incorporated into Puricelli, whether or not some of the insulation needs
to be removed to create flange flexibility." Non-Final Act. 3 (stating that
such insulation removal "is well within the purview of one with an ordinary
skill in the art").
Appellant presents many arguments opposing the rejection of claim
10. See App. Br. 9-16; Reply Br. 2-4. We address Appellant's argument
that Puricelli's "flange does not contact the innermost glass panel 27 as
claimed." App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 3.
3
Appeal 2018-006286
Application 13/680,439
Throughout the Examiner's analysis, we note that the Examiner has
repeatedly emphasized that "the one and only feature adapted from Katona is
the compressive nature of the window unit's flange, nothing else." Ans. 4;
see also id. 5. The Examiner is specifically relying on Katona's
"compression feature -that is it," not Katona's "structure [which] has not
been used." Ans. 4, 5. For the structures recited in the claim ( e.g., the
innermost glass panel and the flange), the Examiner is, instead, relying on
Puricelli. 2 Ans. 5.
Focusing on Puricelli, the Examiner explains that Puricelli's
insulation 57 is interpreted "as being part of the frame." Ans. 2. "Appellant
disagrees that the current scope of claims would interpret insulation as part
of the frame." Reply Br. 2. Appellant does not, however, dispute that
Puricelli's insulation 57 is in direct contact with Puricelli's innermost glass
panel 27. See, e.g., Puricelli Fig. 2. Regardless, the limitation in question is
directed to the glass being "directly against the flange" (which forms a part
of the frame), not against any of the frame's insulation. Thus, the
Examiner's interpretation of Puricelli' s insulation "being part of the frame"
(Ans. 2) is not persuasive that this limitation is disclosed.
Additionally, the Examiner references a passage in Puricelli, stating
"panels 27, 29, and 33 are fixed to one another and to the frame 21 by means
2 The Examiner appears to back-track somewhat from this stance, stating
that Katona's "compression feature is added to the design of Puricelli" and
"[t]he Examiner is of the opinion that one with an ordinary skill in the art
would be able to adapt this compression to Puricelli." Ans. 3. Should this
be the case, the Examiner appears to rely on a "design change" involving the
removal of some of Puricelli's insulation (see Non-Final Act. 3), which is
discussed in more detail below.
4
Appeal 2018-006286
Application 13/680,439
of metal sections 37." Ans. 2-3 (referencing Puricelli 3:6-7). Appellant
also addresses this passage. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends, "[t]he
part of Puricelli that holds the glass is the metal sections 37 which are then
fixed to the frame 21." Reply Br. 3. We note that metal section 3 7 is
separate and distinct from corresponding frame 21 and the Examiner
correlates these components to different claimed structure (i.e., "frame" 21
and "bracket" 37). See Non-Final Act. 2. Appellant continues, arguing "the
rear frame 21, or any part of the rear frame 21 that can be construed as a
flange is not in contact with the glass." Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
Appellant concludes, "[i]f panel 27 is in contact with anything, it is in
contact with the insulation 57." Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive. Puricelli clearly states (see
Puricelli 3: 6-7) that the innermost glass panel 2 7 is fixed to the frame "by
means of metal sections 3 7." Thus, Puricelli appears to disclose indirect
contact between glass panel 27 and frame 21, which is consistent with
Figure 2 of Puricelli. Claim 10, however, requires the glass panel to be
"directly" against the frame's flange.
Regarding the Examiner's discussion of "design change" and the need
for "some of [Puricelli's] insulation ... to be removed" (see supra), the
only reasons expressed by the Examiner to do so are to (a) "reduce assembly
time" and (b) "further secure the panel [against] rattling." Non-Final Act. 3.
The Examiner does not explain how installing thinner insulation, or even
removing some insulation after it has been installed, reduces assembly time.
Additionally, the Examiner does not explain how such thinner insulation
further secures the panel against rattling when it appears that Puricelli' s
5
Appeal 2018-006286
Application 13/680,439
panels are already secured against rattling in their respective cavities. See
Puricelli's figures.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of Puricelli and Katona renders claim 10 obvious. Because
claim 1 includes the same limitation and Appellant relies on the same
arguments (see supra), we likewise are not persuaded of the obviousness of
claim 1. We, thus, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
10, and dependent claims 2-8 and 11-14.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 13
as unpatentable over Puricelli, Katona, and Katona '338
Dependent claims 6 and 13 recite first and second pairs of brackets.
The Examiner relies on the additional reference, Katona '338, as disclosing
this additional bracket pair. Non-Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner does not
employ Katona '338 in a manner that might cure the above described defect.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 13
as being obvious over Puricelli, Katona, and Katona '338.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6