Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

12967170 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/967,170 12/14/2010
46726 7590 02/16/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James O'Neal Taylor
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.
2010P03224US 1131
EXAMINER
ROERSMA, ANDREW MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2016 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteJAMES O'NEAL TAYLOR
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James O'Neal Taylor (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems positioning an appliance using a
base with adjustable levelers. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
1. A positioning base for locating a household appliance in a
cabinet, the base comprising:
a main body for attaching to a support area of the cabinet;
a first elevated section attached to the main body, an upper
surface of the first elevated section being located vertically above
the main body when the base is attached to the cabinet; and
a plurality of adjustable levelers attached to the upper
surface of the first elevated section, each adjustable leveler
having
a head for supporting the household appliance, and
an adjustment portion fixed to the head and movable
relative to the upper surface of the first elevated section
such that movement of the adjustment portion moves the
head vertically relative to the upper surface of the first
elevated section,
wherein the head of each of the adjustable levelers
provides a resting point for a support point on the household
appliance, and
each of the adjustable levelers is adjustable independently
of each of the other adjustable levelers.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yates
Grunewald
Owen
Borbolla
Hasslberger
us 3,304,032
us 3,853,053
US 6,508,037 Bl
US 2008/0251650 Al
US 2009/0183360 Al
2
Feb. 14, 1967
Dec. 10, 1974
Jan. 21, 2003
Oct. 16, 2008
July 23, 2009
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hasslberger and Yates.
II. Claims 6, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hasslberger, Yates, and Grunewald. 1
III. Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hasslberger, Yates, Grunewald, Borbolla, and
Owen.
OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23
together. See Appeal Br. 9-10. We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim, and claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23 stand or
fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Hasslberger discloses the system of claim 1
except that Hasslberger's main body is not intended to be used for attaching
to a support area of the cabinet and Hasslberger fails to disclose the plurality
of adjustable levelers attached to the upper surface of the first elevated
section. See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner takes official notice that it is
well-known in the art to mount appliances in cabinets, and it would have
1 Although in the statement of the rejections for Rejections II and III the
Examiner does not list Yates, the Examiner states that he is using
Hasslberger as applied to claims in Rejection I in which Hasslberger is
combined with Yates. Final Act. 5. We consider the Examiner's omission
of Yates from the statement of rejections to be a typographical error.
3
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
been obvious "to use Hasslberger' s structure to attach an appliance in a
cabinet rather than on top of another appliance." Id. at 3. The Examiner
also finds that Yates teaches a plurality of adjustable levelers, and reasons
that it would have been obvious "to install [the] threaded feet [of the
adjustable levelers] into the upper surface of Hasslberger' s support profiles
with the motivation of leveling an appliance installed in the cabinet." Id. at
4.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to add
adjustable levelers to the support profiles of Hasslberger because
Hasslberger discloses clamping the appliance positioned on the support
profiles in place with brackets of fixed length and adjustable levelers would
create differing heights which would interfere with the function of the
clamping device. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner responds that the provision
of adjustability involves only routine skill, and "one of ordinary skill would
have the knowledge, skills, and ability to make brackets 16, 18 adjustable"
to perform the clamping function in the proposed combination. Ans. 3.
Appellant fails to show that it is beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill
in the art to make the clamping brackets of Hasslberger adjustable. Thus,
Appellant fails to apprise us of error.
Appellant also argues that it would not have been obvious to add
adjustable levelers to the support profiles of Hasslberger because leveling
adjustments between the upper appliance and lower appliance of Hasslberger
would cause an undesirable asymmetrical appearance or an improper fitting
of a fascia panel over the appliances. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. We are not
persuaded because this argument is not germane to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner's proposed rejection uses
4
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
Hasslberger's batlle to attach an appliance in a cabinet rather than on top of
another appliance, and Appellant's argument is directed to a system in which
an appliance is stacked on another appliance. Final Act. 3.
Appellant further argues that Yates fails to teach placing adjustable
levelers on a base on which an appliance is to be set and at most teaches
placing adjustable levelers on the bottom of an appliance. Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner finds that one would add levelers to the profiles of
Hasslberger to level the appliance in an uneven cabinet or in a cabinet placed
on an uneven floor. Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons "[o]ne would not put
levelers on the bottom of the microwave, because Hasslberger teaches that
the microwave already has feet, and those feet fit into recesses 10 in profiles
9." Id. Appellant contends that the recesses in Hasslberger are not holes,
which eliminates Examiner's argument that the adjustable levelers would be
placed on the support profiles rather than the appliance. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's contention is not well taken because it does not consider the
combined teachings of the references. Further, Appellant does not explain
why the combined teachings of Hasslberger and Yates do not render this
limitation obvious to one skill in the art. Thus, Appellant fails to apprise us
of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23, which fall therewith.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17
Appellant argues that Yates fails to teach using four adjustable
levelers because it teaches using only two adjustable leveling feet at the
front comers of an appliance. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that "one
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the advantages of having
5
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
leveling feet at the front of the appliance apply equally well to the rear of the
appliance." Ans. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument,
because it is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Final Act. 3. Yates' disclosure of two adjustable leveling feet suggests the
desirability of adjustable leveling feet. The amount of adjustable leveling
feet required is dependent on the environment in which the adjustable
leveling feet are to be used. Appellant does not explain why the use of two
adjusting leveling feet would not render the use of four adjusting leveling
feet obvious. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Rejections II and III
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15,
respectively. Appellant argues that the additional references do not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, from which these claims
depend, and does not present any separate arguments regarding the
patentability of these claims. See Appeal Br. 11-12. We find no
deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6
Appeal2013-011071
Application 12/967,170
lllSC
7