Ex Parte Larsen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 21, 2012

11485474 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 21, 2012)

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