Ex Parte Moser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2013

11658246 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HERMANN MOSER,
BERND SCHESSL, and RAINER SCHÜTZ
____________

Appeal 2011-007680
Application 11/658,246
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 19-21 and 23-39. App. Br. 3. Claims 1-18 and 22 are cancelled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-007680
Application 11/658,246

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 19, 36, and 39 are independent. Claim 19 is reproduced
below:
19. A crockery basket for receiving a plurality of different
items of crockery for handling of such crockery in a
dishwasher machine, the crockery basket comprising:
a holding device having a plurality of prongs, the holding
device being foldable between different pivoting
positions and having at least two folding prong rows,
each of the at least two folding prong rows being folded
independently of each other between different pivoting
positions,
wherein an axis of rotation of a first folding prong row of
the at least two folding prong rows is arranged above a
wire mat of the crockery basket, and
wherein an axis of rotation of a second folding prong row
of the at least two folding prong rows is arranged below
the wire mat of the crockery basket.

REJECTION
Claims 19-21 and 23-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Fiocca (US 3,752,322; iss. Aug. 14, 1973).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 19-21 and 23-39 as a group. App. Br. 8-15.
We select claim 19 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 20, 21, and 23-39 stand or fall with claim 19.
The Examiner found that Fiocca discloses a crockery basket with all
the features recited in claim 19 including at least two folding prong rows 43,
43 in Figure 3 or 34, 36 in Figure 4, and that the axis of rotation of one of
the folding prong rows is above the horizontal centerline of the wire mat 24
and an axis of rotation of the other folding prong row is below the wire mat
Appeal 2011-007680
Application 11/658,246

3
24. Ans. 4. The Examiner interpreted claim 19 as not reciting any features
of a wire mat and reasoned that Figure 3 of Fiocca discloses a wire mat 24
that extends so that an axis of rotation of the leftmost folding prong rows 43
is above a centerline of wire mat 24 and an axis of rotation of the rightmost
folding prong rows is below a centerline of wire mat 24. The Examiner
identified the centerline of the wire mat 24 with a circle on Figure 3 between
the two axes of rotation. Ans. 6-7 (annotating Figures 2-4 of Fiocca).
Appellants argue that Fiocca does not disclose a first folding prong
row with an axis of rotation above a wire mat of the crockery basket and a
second folding row with an axis of rotation below the wire mat, as recited in
claims 19, 36, and 39. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 14-15. Appellants also assert
that Figure 3 of Fiocca discloses that the axes of rotation of all of the prongs
43 are disposed over or above the wire mat 24 and does not disclose any part
of the wire prongs 43 being disposed below the wire mat 24 in Figures 2-4.
App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 16-17. Appellants contend that the term “wire mat”
means a coarse, woven, plaited, or felted fabric made of wire used especially
as a floor covering or a support, and Appellants’ Figure 1 shows a wire mat
6 as the woven pieces of wire forming the floor (or mat) of the crockery
basket. Reply Br. 12-13.
The claims do not require the axes of rotation of the first or second
folding prong rows to be above or below any specific portion of the wire mat
or the entire wire mat. Even applying Appellants’ proffered definition of
“wire mat,” we agree with the Examiner that Fiocca discloses a wire mat
having a plurality of wires 24 where a first folding prong row has an axis of
rotation “above a wire mat of the crockery basket” in that the axis of rotation
is above a portion of the wire support, and a second folding prong row has
Appeal 2011-007680
Application 11/658,246

4
an axis of rotation “below a wire mat of the crockery basket” in that it is
below a portion of the wire support, as shown in Figure 3. We decline to
read unclaimed features from the Specification into the claims. We sustain
the rejection of claims 19-21 and 23-39.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 19-21 and 23-39.

AFFIRMED

mls