Ex Parte Noh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2013

11159331 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HEE SEOK NOH
____________

Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, REMY J. VANOPHEM, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hee Seok Noh (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 12-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced below.
1. A tub construction for a dishwasher, comprising:
an upper panel;
a lower panel disposed below the upper panel; and
a generally U-shape intermediate panel connected
perpendicularly between the upper panel and the lower panel,
the generally U-shape intermediate panel having a left side
portion, a rear side portion and a right side portion, the
generally U-shape intermediate panel having a generally U-
shape upper edge portion, the generally U-shape upper edge
portion including a joining portion welded to the upper panel,
wherein the generally U-shape joining portion has at least
one straight portion and at least one curved portion, a width of a
welding surface of the at least one curved portion being
narrower than a width of a welding surface of the at least one
straight portion such that the welding surface of the at least one
straight portion and the welding surface of the at least one
curved portion adopt a same thickness after welding, the
welding surface of the at least one straight portion and the
welding surface of the at least one curved portion of the
generally U-shape joining portion being welded to and in
contact with the upper panel.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Potts US 3,698,596 Oct. 17, 1972
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

3
Hexter US 5,538,135 July 23, 1996
Thies US 5,924,433 July 20, 1999
Centis GB 2 064 309 A June 17, 1981
Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite for failure to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant
regards as the invention;
II. Claims 1-7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Centis, Hexter, and Potts; and
III. Claims 8, 9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Centis, Hexter, Potts, and Thies.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Rejection I – Indefiniteness
The Examiner found that the claims “fail to recite sufficient structural
elements and interconnection of the elements to positively position and
define the structure(s) & component(s) whereby ‘the welding surface of the
at least one straight portion and the welding surface of the at least one
curved portion adopt a same thickness after welding[,]’ . . . so that an
integral structure able to function as claimed is recited.” Ans. 4-5. The
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

4
Examiner also found that it is “not clear how ‘the welding surface of the at
least one straight portion and the welding surface of the at least one curved
portion adopt a same thickness after welding’” and that it is “also unclear
whether, by ‘thickness’, [sic] these claims refer to the difference between R1
& R2 in Fig. 7 of the instant application, the thickness of Item 221 in said
figure, or some other dimension.” Id. at 11-12.
Appellant asserts that the claim language itself
clearly defines and positions the structure of the elements of the
generally U-shape joining portion, i.e., the welding surface of
the at least one straight portion of the generally U-shape joining
portion and the welding surface of the at least one curved
portion of the generally U-shape joining portion adopt the same
thickness.
App. Br. 12. Appellant also points to paragraphs [0063] and [0064] of the
Specification, which describe the position and structure of the elements of
the generally U-shape joining portion. Id.
We agree with Appellant that the claim phrase “the welding surface of
the at least one straight portion and the welding surface of the at least one
curved portion adopt a same thickness after welding” is not indefinite. First,
the claim language itself recites the position and structure of the elements
addressed—welding surface of at least one straight portion and welding
surface of at least one curved portion of the generally U-shaped joining
portion. Second, the Specification, in particular paragraph [0064], explains
how these surfaces adopt a same thickness after welding:
Accordingly, when the upper and lower parts of the welding
portions 221 and 231 are pressed by a welding roller, wrinkles
on the inner curved portion 221a are straightened. Furthermore,
when wrinkles are straightened, they are pushed to the centers
of the upper welding portion 221 corners, namely, the thinnest
areas of the upper welding portion 221. Accordingly, the
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

5
corner and straight portion of the upper welding portion 221
adopt the same thickness for an even welding line.
Spec., para. [0064] (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 12. In light of the
claim language and description in the Specification, we do not find the claim
phrase indefinite.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II – Centis, Hexter, and Potts
The central issues with respect to Rejection II are whether the prior art
discloses:
(1) the generally U-shape upper edge portion including a
joining portion welded to the upper panel, and
(2) the generally U-shape joining portion ha[ving] at least
one straight portion and at least one curved portion, a
width of a welding surface of the at least one curved
portion being narrower than a width of a welding surface
of the at least one straight portion such that the welding
surface of the at least one straight portion and the
welding surface of the at least one curved portion adopt a
same thickness after welding, the welding surface of the
at least one straight portion and the welding surface of
the at least one curved portion of the generally U-shape
joining portion being welded to and in contact with the
upper panel.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner concluded that Centis, Hexter, and Potts render obvious
the subject matter of claims 1-7, 16 and 17. Ans. 5-9. The Examiner noted
that while Centis fails to teach a structure wherein a width of at least one
curved portion is narrower than a width of at least one straight portion and
wherein said joining portion is welded to the upper panel, Hexter and Potts
taught these elements of the claims.
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

6
Specifically, the Examiner found that Hexter disclosed:
a structure wherein a width of a surface of a corner portion (40,
42, 44, 46) of a flange is made narrower than a width of a
surface of a straight portion (24, 26, 28, 30) thereof in order to
prevent wrinkling (col. 4, lines 63-65) when said flange is
folded (Figs. 4-6), such that the straight & corner portions adopt
a same thickness (Figs. 3 & 4A) after rolling.
Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner found that
broadly, Hexter, can be viewed as teaching reducing a
dimension (e.g., a width, or a thickness) of a width of a surface
of a corner portion of a structure relative to a corresponding
dimension of a width of a surface of a straight portion thereof,
for the purpose of preventing the formation of wrinkles at said
corner portion.
Id. The Examiner also found that Potts discloses welding an upper panel to
an intermediate panel along a joining portion. Id. Additionally, the
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art
to combine the teachings of the references to provide the structure
substantially as claimed. Id.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner acknowledged that Centis and
Potts fail to teach
a width of a welding surface of the at least one curved portion
being narrower than a width of a welding surface of the at least
one straight portion such that the welding surface of the at least
one straight portion and the welding surface of the at least one
curved portion adopt a same thickness after welding.
App. Br. 13. Appellant contends, however, that Hexter does not “cure the
deficiencies of Centis” because “the difference between the width of the
corner marginal portions 40, 42, 44 and 46 and the width of the edge
marginal portions 24, 26, 28 and 30 has nothing to do with welding” and
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

7
“the thickness of the corner marginal portions 40, 42, 44 and 46 are not
varied after folding.” Id. at 14.
We disagree. First, we note that Appellant acknowledges that Hexter
teaches reducing the width of a corner portion as compared to a straight
portion to (1) form a smooth continuous border without any sharp edge
when the corner portions are folded and (2) avoid interference when the
edge marginal portions are rolled. Id.
Second, Appellant’s first contention—that Hexter has nothing to do
with welding—is inapposite. The Examiner did not rely on Hexter as
disclosing welding. See, e.g., Ans. 6, 12 (“Hexter . . . is not cited for a
teaching of welding.”). The Examiner relied on Potts for that disclosure.1
See id. at 6.
Third, Appellant’s claim language2 and the Specification confirm that
the adoption of the same thickness after welding the straight portion and
curved portion is a result of the difference in width of the portions and a
consequence of rolling: “a width of a welding surface of the at least one
curved portion being narrower than the width of a welding surface of the at
least on straight portion such that the welding surface of the at least one

1 Even assuming, as it appears the Examiner did, that Appellant raises a
question of whether Hexter is analogous art, we agree with the Examiner
that Hexter is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
[A]ppellant was concerned, i.e., preventing wrinkling at the corner portions
of a folded component.” See Ans. at 12. Appellant’s Specification discloses
that welding involves folding and rolling. See, e.g., Spec., para. [0060] (“In
seam welding of prior art tubs, the folded amount differs at the corners,
resulting in wrinkling.”); Spec., para. [0064] (“Accordingly, when the upper
and lower parts of the welding portions 221 and 231 are pressed by a
welding roller, wrinkles on the inner curved portion 221a are straightened.”).
2 Claims 1 and 12, the only independent claims, include this element.
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

8
straight portion and the welding portion of the at least one curved portion
adopt a same thickness after welding.” App. Br., Claims Appendix at A-1
(emphasis added); see also Spec., Para. [0064] (“when the upper and lower
parts of the welding portions 221 and 231 are pressed by a welding roller,
wrinkles on the inner curved portion 221a are straightened . . . [and] the
corners and straight portions of the upper welding portion 221 adopt the
same thickness for an even welding line.”).
Importantly, the Examiner specifically found that Hexter disclosed
that the narrower width of the curved portion resulted in the curved and
straight portions adopting a same thickness after rolling: the width is
narrower “to prevent wrinkling (col. 4, lines 63-65) when said flange is
folded (Figs. 4-6), such that the straight & corner portions adopt a same
thickness (Figs. 3-4A) after rolling.” Ans. 6. The Examiner has a sound
basis for belief, which Appellant has not rebutted with evidence, that the
welding surface of the at least one straight portion and the welding surface
of the at least one curved portion will adopt the same thicknesses after
welding as they had adopted after being folded but before being welded.
This element of the claims requires nothing further.
Accordingly, because Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s findings, we sustain Rejection II. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1362 (CCPA 1977) (explaining the burden shift to Appellant when the PTO
satisfies its initial burden of proof).
Rejection III – Centis, Hexter, Potts, and Thies
The Examiner concluded that Centis, Hexter, Potts, and Thies render
obvious the subject matter of claims 8-9, 12-15, and 18-20. Ans. 9-11.
Appeal 2010-012103
Application 11/159,331

9
Appellant repeats the same argument raised in response to Rejection II—that
Hexter does not teach
a width of a welding surface of the at least one curved portion
being narrower than a width of a welding surface of the at least
one straight portion such that the welding surface of the at least
one straight portion and the welding surface of the at least one
curved portion adopt a same thickness after welding.
App. Br. 16.
For the reasons explained in the context of Rejection II supra, we do
not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive and accordingly, sustain
Rejection III.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 12-20
for indefiniteness. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9
and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as reflected in Rejections II and III.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls