Ex Parte ROTTER et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 9, 2019

15383145 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/383,145 12/19/2016
27238 7590 05/13/2019
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 North M63
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chad ROTTER
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-09127-US-NP 6814
EXAMINER
ROERSMA, ANDREW MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2019 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):
MAIL@DWPATENTLAW.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 CHAD ROTTER, SANKET V. PHALAK, and
JEEVAN S. YADAV
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, Whirlpool Corporation, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and
20-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The disclosure is directed to a refrigerator "and, more particularly, to
a crisper drawer for a refrigerator." Spec. i-fl. The disclosure pertains, at
least in one respect, to the manner in which the crisper drawer is secured to a
glide. Unlike in the prior art illustrated in Figures 2A through 2D, the
Specification discloses a drawer having retaining clips (Fig. 3A, ref. 300,
301) that couple to endcaps of glide rails (Fig. 4A, ref. 405, 406), which
coupling prevents the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide
rail. See, e.g., id. ,I3 ("The retaining clip is directly coupled to the glide
endcap. The retaining clip and the glide endcap prevent the drawer from
moving vertically relative to the glide rail.").
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 are rejected. Final Act. 1. 1
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below.
1. A refrigerator comprising:
a refrigerated compartment;
a door configured to selectively seal the refrigerated
compartment;
a drawer assembly mounted in the refrigerated
compartment, wherein the drawer assembly includes:
a glide having:
a glide rail movable relative to the
refrigerated compartment; and
1 Dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected to. Final Act. 1.
2
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
a glide endcap directly coupled to the glide rail;
and
a drawer having:
a front wall, a rear wall, a bottom wall and
opposing side walls;
a retaining clip directly coupled to the glide
endcap, wherein the retaining clip and the glide endcap
prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the
glide rail.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
The Appealed Rejections
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before us for
review:
1. claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 over Go2 and Litchfield3
(Final Act. 3); and
2. claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and Seo4 (id. at 5); and
3. claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and Ertz5 (id. at 6).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Go and Litchfield.
The Examiner found that Go, which is directed to a refrigerator (see
Go, [54]), teaches all of the subject matter of the independent claims except
for a retaining clip directly coupled to the glide endcap "wherein the
retaining clip and the glide endcap prevent the drawer from moving
vertically relative to the glide rail," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Final
Act. 3 (citing Go i-fi-f62, 63, and 75-82, Figs. 1--4). In particular, the
Examiner found that Go's groove 41 directly couples to protrusion 111 a on
the endcap of the glide rail. Final Act. 3; see also Go i-f82. But Go's groove
2 WO 2015/030546 Al, published March 5, 2015, is foreign language
application by Hyoung Min Go et al. US 2016/0216027 Al, published July
28, 2016, is an English language version of the same application. Final Act.
3. The Examiner's references to "Go" are to the WO application if to
drawings, and to the US application if to text. Id. We follow suit.
3 US 4,042,288, issued Aug. 16, 1977 ("Litchfield").
4 KR 10-2009-0133009, published Dec. 31, 2009 ("Seo").
5 US 7,406,833 B2, issued Aug. 5, 2008 ("Ertz").
4
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
simply rests on protrusion 111 a; it does not couple to it in a manner that
would "prevent the drawer from moving vertically relative to the glide rail,"
as recited in the claims.
The Examiner found that Litchfield, which is directed to extruded
plastic panel drawers (see Litchfield, [54]), "discloses the attachment of
drawer components with a lug 15/23 and a hole 17 /24" and determined that
it would have been obvious to use the same on Go's groove and endcap
protrusion "as the combination of prior art elements according to known
methods yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art." Final
Act. 3.
Appellant presents multiple arguments against the rejection of the
independent claims. The first argument is that Go's groove is not a retaining
clip. Appeal Br. 7. Although we agree with Appellant that the unmodified
groove is not a retaining clip, Appellant's argument is not persuasive of
error. The articulated rejection relies on a modification of Go's groove,
namely the incorporation of a hole corresponding to a lug. See Final Act. 3;
Ans. 3; see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references."). We are satisfied that the groove as so
modified is a "retaining clip" as recited in the claims.
However, Appellant's next argument is persuasive. Namely, "[t]here
is nothing in these references to suggest using such structure to attach a
drawer to a glide, as claimed." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply 2 ("Typically,
in the prior art, only a loose connection is provided between the drawer and
the glide, i.e., relative movement is allowed between these components.").
5
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
As Appellant points out, Litchfield teaches its detent members 15/23 and
openings 17 /24 (termed "lugs" and "holes" by Examiner) for the purpose of
securing different parts of a drawer to one another ( e.g., a sidewall to a front
wall). Appeal Br. 8 (citing Litchfield Figs. 1-2). But the Examiner never
explains satisfactorily why a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent
improper hindsight, would have any objective reason to couple a refrigerator
drawer retaining clip to a glide endcap to "prevent the drawer from moving
vertically relative to the glide rail," as recited in the claims.
The Examiner's cited reason is to "to predictably 'prevent accidental
separation of the parts."' Final Act. 3 (quoting Litchfield 2:34, 3:2-3).
Litchfield explicitly teaches this, but the teaching is in reference to the parts
of its drawer, which must remain connected if the drawer is to remain a
drawer. Litchfield 2:34, 3:2-3. Litchfield does not teach its detent members
and openings to prevent accidental separation of its drawer from some other
structure such as a glide, cabinet, or dresser. Further, the Examiner has not
established that Go's drawer is at risk of accidental separation from its glide.
In fact, Go's drawer appears to be designed, as with the prior art illustrated
in Figures 2A through 2D of the Specification, to facilitate intentional-only
separation of the drawer by requiring lifting of the drawer when in an
extended position. See Go Fig. 4.
We are fully satisfied that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
easily combine the cited prior art teachings. However, we are not satisfied
that the Examiner has identified a reason the skilled person would do so.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and
20 as unpatentable over Go and Litchfield.
6
Appeal2018-007004
Application 15/383,145
Rejections 2 and 3
Claims 21-23 depend from dependent claims 1, 8, and 15,
respectively. Appeal Br. 23. The rejections of claims 21-23 are explicitly
premised on claims 1, 8, and 15 being rendered obvious by Go and
Litchfield. See Final Act. 5---6.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 21-23 for reasons
already discussed.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 over Go
and Litchfield is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and
Seo is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-23 over Go, Litchfield, and
Ertz is reversed.
REVERSED
7