Ex Parte Larsen et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 21, 201211485474 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 21, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/485,474 07/13/2006 Christopher A. Larsen LAR007-038 2417 7590 08/21/2012 Whirlpool Patents Company - MD 0750 500 Renaissance Drive, Suite 102 St. Joseph, MI 49085 EXAMINER PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/21/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex Parte CHRISTOPHER A. LARSEN, DAVID E. LEVI, and MARK A. PICKERING Appeal 2010-007782 Application 11/485,474 Technology Center 3700 Before, KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007782 Application No. 11/485,474 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the present invention pertains to the art of cooking appliances. Even more specifically, the invention is directed to a French-style door seal mounting and timing arrangement designed to minimize seal gasket wear. Spec. 1, ll. 8-12. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER 1. A cooking appliance comprising: a frame; an oven cavity supported, at least in part, by the frame, said oven cavity including top, bottom, rear and opposing side walls that define a frontal opening; a first door pivotally mounted relative to the frame for selectively closing, in part, the frontal opening, said first door including an inner panel portion and an outer panel portion; a second door pivotally mounted relative to the frame for selectively closing, in part, the frontal opening, said second door including an inner panel portion and an outer panel portion; a first gasket positioned on the inner panel portion of the first door, said first gasket being substantially annular, with the first gasket including opposing gasket side portions that extend about an entire periphery of the inner panel portion of the first door; and a second gasket positioned on the inner panel portion of the second door, said second gasket being substantially less than annular, with the second gasket Appeal 2010-007782 Application No. 11/485,474 3 including a plurality of gasket portions that extends only about a partial portion of a periphery of the inner panel portion of the second door. REJECTION Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Anetsberger et al. (U.S. 3,707,145; iss. Dec. 26, 1972; hereinafter “Anetsberger”) in view of the teachings of Schinzel et al. (U.S. 5,465,528; iss. Nov. 14, 1995; hereinafter “Schinzel”). ANALYSIS In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner finds that Anetsberger teaches the cooking appliances of claim 1 with the exception of a first gasket positioned on the inner panel portion of the first door, said first gasket being substantially annular, with the first gasket including opposing gasket side portions that extend about an entire periphery of the inner panel portion of the first door; and a second gasket positioned on the inner panel portion of the second door, said second gasket being substantially less than annular, with the second gasket including a plurality of gasket portions that extends only about a partial portion of a periphery of the inner panel portion of the second door. (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner also finds that Schinzel teaches a cabinet having overlapping doors with a first gasket (40) positioned on the inner panel portion of a first door (24), said first gasket being substantially annular, with the first gasket including opposing gasket side portions (40a, 40b, 40c, and 40d) that extend about an entire periphery of an inner panel portion of the first door; and a second gasket (70) positioned on an inner panel portion of a second door (26), said second gasket being substantially less than annular, with the second gasket including a plurality Appeal 2010-007782 Application No. 11/485,474 4 of gasket portions (70a-70c) that extends only about a partial portion of a periphery of the inner panel portion of the second door (see figure 2). (Ans. 7). The Examiner, based on the above findings, concludes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Anetsberger to incorporate a first gasket positioned on the inner panel portion of the first door, said first gasket being substantially annular with the first gasket including opposing gasket side portions that extend about an entire periphery of the inner panel portion of the first door; and a second gasket positioned on the inner panel portion of the second door, said second gasket being substantially less than annular, with the second gasket including a plurality of gasket portions that extends only about a partial portion of the periphery of the inner panel portion of the second door. (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner reasons that this modification would have been obvious “since gaskets on oven doors is old and well known in the art and such a modification would provide an effective seal against the escape of heated gasses from within said oven cavity thereby enhancing cooking efficiency and also providing a safety benefit against burns.” Id. at 9. Appellants argue that, the Anetsberger’s specification specifically teaches an arrangement of a self-cleaning oven wherein temperatures may reach between 750°-950°F while, by contrast, Schinzel is simply directed to a cabinet used in industrial applications for housing electrical components and deals with cabinets having interiors which are sealed against external contaminants such as, for example, water and dust. (Rep. Br. 3 (citing Schnizel, column 1, lines 11-20).) Appellants submit that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Schinzel to improve an arrangement as taught by Anetsberger (Id. at 3). We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has failed to adequately articulate why one skilled in the art would go to industrial cabinets for housing Appeal 2010-007782 Application No. 11/485,474 5 electrical components sealed against external contaminants such as dust and water to combine with self-cleaning ovens. As the Examiner acknowledges, it was known to use gaskets or seals on oven doors. Ans. 9. The Examiner does not adequately explain why Anetsberger’s oven lacked a gasket already providing effective sealing so as to prompt a modification of the configuration to that of Schnizel. The independent method claim 7 recites similar gasket configuration features. CONCLUSION We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Anetsberger in view of the teachings of Schintel. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED MP Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation