LIBERTY HARDWARE MFG. CORP.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2021

2021002831 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/331,287 10/21/2016 Ryan Patrick MARTIN MASLH 0201 PUS 7657
101011 7590 11/19/2021
Brooks Kushman P.C. / Masco Corporation
1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2021 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN PATRICK MARTIN, JEFFREY JOHN MATHISON, and
EARL DAVID FORREST

Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–23. See Appeal Br. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies “Liberty Hardware Mfg. Corp.” as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled “Mirror Display Assembly and Retail Display
System.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 7, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br., Claims
App. 1–4 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claims 1 and 7 below, with
emphases added to particular language addressed in this Decision:
1. A retail display system comprising:
a point-of-sale display unit sized to be received in a retail
store aisle;
a first plurality of mirror panes oriented within the display
unit;
a second plurality of mirror panes oriented within the
display unit, wherein the second plurality of mirror panes are
formed from a different material composition that the first
plurality of mirror panes; and
a mirror display assembly with a sample from the first
plurality of mirror panes and a sample from the second plurality
of mirror panes oriented adjacent each other to visually
demonstrate the material composition difference between the
first plurality of mirror panes and the second plurality of mirror
panes.
7. A mirror display assembly comprising:
a support with a base;
an image surface mounted upon the base;
a first mirror pane mounted to the support and oriented at
an angle relative to the image surface to reflect the image surface;
and
a second mirror pane with a different material composition
than the first mirror pane, the second mirror pane mounted to the
support and oriented at an angle relative to the image surface to
reflect the image surface;
wherein the support comprises a rear wall extending
relative to the base; and
wherein the first mirror pane and the second mirror pane
are mounted to a common surface of the rear wall.
Claims App. 1, 2 (emphases added).
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Morgan US 2006/0022214 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Dietz US 2014/0319988 A1 Oct. 30, 2014
Goodwin US 2015/0335177 A1 Nov. 26, 2015
Chapuis US 2015/0371321 A1 Dec. 24, 2015
Allen US 2016/0290573 A1 Oct. 6, 2016
See Final Act. 2–14.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 18–23 103 Dietz, Goodwin
3–6 103 Dietz, Goodwin, Chapuis
11–16 103 Dietz, Goodwin, Morgan
17 103 Dietz, Goodwin, Allen
20 112(a) Written Description
See Final Act. 2–13; Ans. 3.
OPINION
I. Dietz and Goodwin (Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 18–23)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 18–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Dietz and Goodwin. Final Act. 2. Appellant
presents separate arguments for claims 1, 2, 7, and 20–23, but does not
present separate arguments for claims 9, 10, 18, and 19. See Appeal Br. 9–
17. Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 depend from claim 7, so we select independent
claim 7 as the representative claim, with claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 standing or
falling with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address the arguments
for claims 1, 2, and 20–23 separately.
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

4
a. Claim 1
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Dietz
teaches a retail display system, citing in-part Dietz’s Figure 1. Final Act. 2–
3. We reproduce Dietz’s Figure 1, below:

Figure 1 “is a front elevation of an embodiment of the invention in place
within a warehouse pallet rack shelving unit.” Dietz ¶ 17.
The Examiner finds that point-of-sale display unit 11 is sized to be
received in a retail store aisle. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that
Figure 1 includes first plurality of mirror panes (32, 64, 64’) oriented within
display unit 11 and second plurality of mirror panes (32, 64, 64’) also
oriented within display unit 11. Id.; see also Dietz Figs. 2, 4A (depicting
FIG. 1
JO--...._,_ J2==--
l1- TI ~,, 1,---y--~·---...._,_ "
32
II I - , I I' n - ,,,,--Jo n r---t17 1r-- -r,-~
JO- I__,.,.
-I Ii
r rr===:::::;:~lll=• ~;=~=i=lJ
I
'11,
I
'Ill
,,--2/
/ 11
I -, 1_,....-27
JO- .__
17 L--//
/ 9
- ij
I
'Ill
25 '-r 65'\ -
10
J2 1--
l
F -
!=!=
---.-
J2 I.,
I I • =
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

5
“mirror panes” 64, 64’). The Examiner explains that the first and second
plurality of mirror panes are formed from different material compositions
because Dietz discloses that the cabinet and panels are each “equipped with
display material including cabinet facades 88 [shown in Dietz Fig. 4A,
reproduced infra] of available alternative styles to vanity cabinets 60 and
mirror units 64.” See Final Act. 3 (citing Dietz ¶ 48).
The Examiner further finds that Dietz’s Figure 4A “illustrates the
sample mirrors (64, 64’) oriented adjacent, i.e., next to each other.” Id. We
reproduce Dietz’s Figure 4A, below:

'" 8i0 42
....,
I
40
4B
\ _lL II 11 II ' -
'-- ,J l
64' 82
"'\ ' I 7 20---- ~
1// ~
/,
~ '-6
- j? /,/ /://
~ /ff
",f
/4
= 16 L._.,.,--
/ 88 7Wr - ,.
= '-- = 00 - I-I- 1---- 1---- ---= - I-I- ---- 1---- - --- _.,,-bi - 1--- 00 1--- 1 --- 1---- ---- ---1--- 1 --- 1 --
'O
- \ )
TT -r I I
-
' ~ I
FIG. 4A
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

6
Figure 4A is a front elevation of a display with multiple hinged panels,
including one pivot-able panel rotated to its fully-open position. See Dietz
¶¶ 18, 22.
The Examiner finds that
Figure 4a illustrates two different mirror samples having two
different and distinct styles oriented next to each other, one
represented by a mirror style sample (64’) on the left, and the
other represented by a mirror style sample (64) on the right. Note
also further sample styles located on further surfaces nested in
back of and adjacent to each other.
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Dietz does not expressly
teach “locating samples of a product . . . abutting each other, or, in the
alternative, separated by gaps . . . for the purpose of creating ‘a more
immersive display experience.’” Id. at 5. To address this claim language,
the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan “to
have provided first and second mirror panes/samples without any spacing
between them, as taught by Goodwin, in Dietz’[s] display system for the
purpose of creating a more immersive display experience.” Id. The
Examiner explains that the modification would have been a matter of
obvious design choice and that “the amount of space is merely an issue of
aesthetics with each sample.” Id. The Examiner further explains that “it has
been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the
level of skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan” and that “[w]here space is
limited, one of ordinary skill would have considered placing both samples
adjacent to each other without any space between them.” Id. (citing In re
Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

7
In contesting the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that Dietz
“teaches away from disassembling the mirror units 64 to display samples
adjacent each other as proposed in the combination,” because Dietz “is
concerned with displaying the mirror 64 with the frame 68 and at full size
for displaying the entire good, not just a sample.” Appeal Br. 10 (citations
omitted, emphasis added). Appellant further cites to its Specification for
disclosing that the samples are “adjacent each other” to demonstrate the
“difference in how well these glass mirror materials render lighter color hues
or tones” and argues that “[t]his advantage is not appreciated by the prior art
references.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 34).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. A prior
art’s disclosure of more than one alternative is not a teaching away unless
such disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the proposed
combination. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see
also Ans. 6 (citing and explaining the same).
Even if we assume Appellant’s assertion to be true, in that Dietz
discloses displaying its mirror and frame at full size (see Appeal Br. 10), this
alternative teaching does not discourage, discredit, or otherwise criticize the
Examiner’s proposed combination “to have provided first and second mirror
panes/samples without any spacing between them, as taught by Goodwin, in
Dietz’[s] display system for the purpose of creating a more immersive
display experience.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis added). Indeed, Goodwin
teaches positioning samples of product (i.e., floor samples 400) in abutting
or spaced-apart relationship for the purpose of creating “a more immersive
display experience.” See Goodwin ¶¶ 4, 36; see also id. at Figs. 1, 7, 16; see
also Ans. 5–6 (finding the same).
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

8
As to Appellant’s citation to paragraph 34 of its Specification, even if
the Specification describes that samples are placed adjacent each other to
demonstrate the “difference in how well these glass mirror materials render
lighter color hues or tones,” such description is not relevant to our analysis.
We do not read features described in paragraph 34 of the Specification into
the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Ans. 5 (citing and
explaining the same).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s argument does not identify
error in the Examiner’s rejection and we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
b. Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia, “an
image surface mounted to the base” and “wherein the sample from the first
plurality of mirror panes” and “wherein the sample from the second plurality
of mirror panes” are “mounted to the support and oriented at a fixed angle
relative to the image surface to reflect the image surface.” Claims App. 1.
To address the limitations of claim 2, the Examiner finds that Dietz
teaches the claimed structure, referencing in relevant part Dietz’s Figures 2
and 5. Final Act. 6. We reproduce Dietz’s Figure 5, below:
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

9

Figure 5 is a “front perspective view of two adjacent pivotable panels . . . ,
with a first panel rotated to its open position and the second panel resting in
its closed position.” Dietz ¶ 22.
56
42
82
FIG. 5
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

10
The Examiner finds that the first and second pluralities of mirror
panes (32, 64, 64’) are mounted to support (40, 42, 44, 46) and oriented at a
fixed angle relative to image surface 98 to reflect the image surface. Final
Act. 6. The Examiner notes that “0, 90, and 180 degrees is considered a
fixed angle.” Id.
Appellant argues that “photographic or graphic material 98 of Dietz []
is not reflected from a sample from a second plurality of mirror panes as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner’s explanation that first mirror 64 and second mirror 64’ can both
view “photographic or graphic material 98” because the rear surface of each
panel can be viewed at the same time. Ans. 14. To illustrate this finding,
the Examiner submits an annotated version of Dietz’s Figure 3 (id. at 15),
which we reproduce below:

4tT
~~~~n:t~ftS1 ~:~t ~~$:~~S
·tiiiii~t:·~~~ii;~~@i·
/
!
.
FIG. 3
~~~@ !t~~~-~~tl~ifl~ 1~~:·f!~~1k\~~1~1~!:g~~l ~~!t~:
l~;i~~~{~:f ?:~. ~i~~ ~li· {if}~l l~:
26 \
ThiJrr~irt~~i·
J}{lttf· {~i) l~1-l,~~1~tJ)-l~~1~~ t~~-:~;\.:t1}@JM~~;,;t
iM~:1t:~~;::i~;ft:t::~,-,~i;~;1,~~1t;~1l
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

11
Figure 3 is a top view of Dietz’s display, “with the top wall omitted
illustrating the positioning of the pivotable panels of the display invention,
and with the front-most panel shown in phantom in its open position.” Dietz
¶¶ 18, 19. The Examiner annotates Dietz’s Figure 3 to illustrate the
reflected lines of sight from mirror 64 and 64’ and explains that
photographs/samples 98 (shown in Fig. 2) “are visible in direct optical line
of sight to each of the first plurality of mirrors (64) and second plurality of
mirrors (64’).” Ans. 15.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s argument does not identify
error in the Examiner’s rejection and we affirm the rejection of claim 2.
c. Claims 7, 9, 10, 18, and 19
As discussed above, Appellant presents separate arguments to
independent claim 7, but not its dependent claims 9, 10, 18, and 19. See
Appeal Br. 13 (“Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 depend from claim 7, and
therefore, are nonobvious for at least the reasons stated above with reference
to claim 7.”). Accordingly, we select independent claim 7 as the
representative claim, with claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 standing or falling with
claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In rejecting independent claim 7, the Examiner refers to the rejection
of claim 1, and finds that Dietz further teaches “wherein the support
comprises a rear wall (24) extending relative to the base (12)” and “wherein
the first mirror pane (40) and the second mirror pane (42) are mounted to a
common surface of the rear wall (24).” Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner relies on Goodwin for teaching various samples (400)
“mounted to a common surface of the rear wall” and “that each sample is of
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

12
different styles and materials.” Id. at 7 (citing Goodwin Figs. 1, 9–16, ¶¶ 4,
41, 43).
In combining Goodwin with Dietz, the Examiner reasons that a skilled
artisan would have “provided a first and second mirror pane/samples on a
common surface of the rear wall for the purpose of encouraging ease of
comparison by a customer through viewing samples side by side each
other.” Id.
In contesting the rejection of claim 7, Appellant presents two
arguments.
First, Appellant argues that “[t]he photographic or graphic material 98
of Dietz [] is not reflected from a second mirror pane as claimed.” Appeal
Br. 12. For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 2,
however, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. See supra § I.b (annotated
Fig. 3).
Second, Appellant asserts that “[t]he mirror pane samples 64, 64’ of
Dietz [] are mounted to different surfaces—rear wall 24, and front face 82 of
second panel 42.” Appeal Br. 12 (citation omitted, emphasis added). Due to
Dietz’s structure, Appellant argues that “Dietz [] teaches away from
disassembling the mirror units 64 to display samples on a common wall as
proposed in the combination.” Id. (citation omitted).
Appellant’s second argument is also unpersuasive.
The relevant limitation recites, “wherein the first mirror pane and the
second mirror pane are mounted to a common surface of the rear wall.”
Claims App. 2. We agree with the Examiner that the claim language does
not require that mirror panes (64, 64’) be directly mounted and coplanar to a
common rear wall. See Ans. 17. We find that mirror pane 64 (“first mirror
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

13
pane”) is mounted directly to rear wall 24 and mirror pane 64’ (“second
mirror pane”) is mounted indirectly to rear wall 24 vis-à-vis face 82 of
panel 42, thus satisfying the claim limitation. See id. (finding the same).
Moreover, and even if Dietz discloses mirror panes mounted to
different surfaces, which we do not find, Dietz’s alternate structure does not
criticize, discourage, or discredit the Examiner’s proposed modification,
which involves combining Goodwin’s teachings with Dietz’s display system
to meet the limitation, in particular, by “provid[ing] a first and second mirror
pane/samples on a common surface of the rear wall for the purpose of
encouraging ease of comparison by a customer through viewing samples
side by side each other.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 18
(explaining the same).
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the
Examiner’s rejection and we affirm the rejection of claim 7, and of claims 9,
10, 18, and 19, which fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
d. Claim 20
Independent claim 20 recites, inter alia, “a second mirror pane . . .
oriented at a fixed acute angle relative to the image surface to reflect the
image surface.” Claims App. 4.
In rejecting independent claim 20, the Examiner finds that
“Goodwin’s multiple samples (400) are all mounted at a fixed angle and are
all mounted to a common support structure and surface.” Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues that “Goodwin [] discloses displaying floor
panels 400 generally coplanar, not at acute angles.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s argument has some merit. Claim 20 requires the “second
mirror pane . . . [to be] oriented at a fixed acute angle,” and Goodwin
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

14
appears to disclose samples mounted coplanar to the mounting surface.
Indeed, the Examiner acknowledges as much. See Ans. 20. Nevertheless,
Appellant’s argument fails to take into consideration that Dietz teaches
panels that are movable at any angle, including acute angles. See id.
(finding the same). In fully addressing the claim limitation, the Examiner
reasons in the Answer that
Although Goodwin teaches samples on a wall/surface/frame that
is at the same angle with respect to each other, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a fixed
angle as taught by Goodwin at an angle that is acute, in Dietz’[s]
display for the purpose of freezing the access of a particular
panel.
Note that it has been held that the provision of
adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have fixed the acute angle, as opposed to making
the angle adjustable, of any of Dietz’[s] panels, for the purpose
of preventing the panels from falling on a user or to enable a user
to not have to hold the panel steady an extended period of time.
Note also that Dietz’[s] figure 5 appears to show an acute angle
between panels (40 and 42), for example.
Ans. 20–21 (citing In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)).
Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s finding that
Dietz teaches acute angles between panels or the Examiner’s proposed
modification of making the angle between Dietz’s panels fixed to “prevent[]
the panels from falling on a user or to enable a user to not have to hold the
panel steady [for an extended period of time].” Id.; see also Appeal Br. 13;
see also Reply Br. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 20.

Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

15
e. Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the
sample from the second plurality of mirror panes is layered upon the sample
from the first plurality of mirror panes.” Claims App. 4 (emphasis added).
In addressing this limitation, the Examiner finds that Dietz teaches
this structure, citing Dietz’s mirror panes 42 layered upon the sample from
mirror panes 40. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Dietz, Figs. 3–5). The Examiner
also finds that Goodwin teaches its samples 400 as “abutting each other,
which can be interpreted to be ‘layered upon each other.’” Id. at 9. In
combining Dietz with Goodwin, the Examiner reasons that “it would have
been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed a set
of samples of mirrors on one panel/pane (40, 42, 44, 46), which is layered on
another of panels (40, 42, 44, 46) with another set of samples of mirrors next
to each other on each individual panel.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation reads “layered”
out of the claim and that Dietz actually “teaches away from layering the
panes upon each other,” because Dietz “discloses framed mirror
panes 32, 64, 64’.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner has the stronger position.
As to Appellant’s argument that Dietz’s framed mirror panes teaches
away from the proposed combination, nothing in the claims preclude the
mirror pane samples from being framed, and even if something did, Dietz’s
disclosure of framed mirror panes is not a teaching away as it does not
discredit, discourage, or criticize the Examiner’s proposed modification of
layering the sample panes with one another. See Ans. 21 (explaining the
same).
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

16
As to Appellant’s argument that Goodwin’s samples abut one another,
and are not layered, Appellant’s argument ignores Dietz’s teaching that its
mirror panes 40, 42, 44, and 48 are layered upon each other. See Dietz,
Figs. 2, 3, 4a, 4b; see also Ans. 22 (finding the same). Based on the
teachings of the prior art, including Dietz’s teaching of layered window
panes, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that a skilled artisan would
have “placed a set of samples of mirrors on one panel/pane (40, 42, 44, 46),
which is layered on another of panels (40, 42, 44, 46) with another set of
samples of mirrors.” Ans. 22.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 21.
f. Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the
sample from the first plurality of mirror panes and the sample from the
second plurality of mirror panes are not spaced apart by a distance to
visually demonstrate the material composition difference between the first
plurality of mirror panes and the second plurality of mirror panes.” Claims
App. 4 (emphasis added).
In rejecting claim 22, the Examiner notes that Goodwin’s Figures 1
and 16 teach mirror panes not being spaced apart and explains that whether
or not the “plurality or group of mirror samples are grouped together is a
matter of design choice based on marketing and merchandising requirements
. . . so as to provide customers with the best comparisons for making a
mirror purchasing decision.” Final Act. 10.
Appellant argues that Dietz teaches away (Appeal Br. 15), because
Dietz’s mirror pane samples 64, 64’ “are spaced apart” (id. at 14 (citing
Dietz ¶ 34)) and that “Dietz [] is concerned with displaying the mirror 64
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

17
with the frame 68 and at full size for displaying the entire good, not just a
sample” (id. at 15).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Dietz’s
disclosure of an alternative structure does not rise to the level of a teaching
away. Moreover, Appellant attacks Dietz’s teachings individually, without
considering the teachings of Goodwin. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant’s argument ignores Goodwin, which we find
teaches placing samples next to each other, and without a space there
between. See, e.g., Goodwin, Figs. 1, 16.
Based on the teachings of Dietz and Goodwin, we agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning that a skilled artisan would have placed the sample
window panes next to each other so that they “are not spaced apart by a
distance” in order “to provide customers with the best comparisons for
making a mirror purchasing decision.” Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 22.
g. Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the
sample from the first plurality of mirror panes and the sample form the
second plurality of mirror panes are oriented adjacent each other in close
proximity to each other to visually demonstrate the material composition
difference between the first plurality of mirror panes and the second plurality
of mirror panes.” Claims App. 4 (emphasis added).
In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner finds that, based on the combined
teachings of Dietz and Goodwin, a skilled artisan would have oriented the
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

18
sample window panes “adjacent each other in close proximity to each other”
in order “to provide customers with the best comparisons for making a
mirror purchasing decision.” Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner explains that
such a modification is a “matter of design choice based on marketing and
merchandising requirements.” Id. at 10.
Appellant essentially repeats those same unpersuasive arguments
discussed above with respect to claim 22, arguing that Dietz’s alternative
structure teaches away from the proposed combination. See Appeal
Br. 16–17.
For the same reasons Appellant’s argument was not persuasive as to
claim 22, they are not persuasive as to claim 23. We affirm the rejection of
claim 23.
h. Summary of Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 18–23
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 18–23 as unpatentable over Dietz and Goodwin.
II. Dietz, Goodwin, and Chapuis (Claims 3–6)
Claims 3–6 depend from claim 1 and the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Chapuis for addressing the specific limitations of these claims.
See Final Act. 11–12.
Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection
of claims 3–5. See Appeal Br. 18. As to claim 6, however, Appellant
presents separate arguments. See Appeal Br. 18. Claim 6 recites:
wherein the housing comprises a base;
wherein the mirror display assembly further comprises an
image surface oriented at an angle relative to the base;
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

19
wherein the sample from the first plurality of mirror panes
is mounted to the housing and oriented at an angle relative to the
image surface to reflect the image surface; and
wherein the sample from the second plurality of mirror
panes is mounted to the support and oriented at an angle relative
to the image surface to reflect the image surface.
Claims App. 2.
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that Dietz teaches this
structure. See Final Act. 12.
Appellant argues that “[t]he photographic or graphic material 98 of
Dietz [] is not reflected from a sample from a second plurality of mirror
panes as claimed.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
As discussed above in connection with claim 2 (see supra § I.b), Dietz
discloses this structure. As shown in the Examiner’s annotated version of
Dietz’s Figure 3, photographs/samples 98 (shown in Fig. 2) “are visible in
direct optical line of sight to each of the first plurality of mirrors (64) and
second plurality of mirrors (64’).” See Ans. 15.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 3–6 as unpatentable
over Dietz, Goodwin, and Chapuis.
III. Dietz, Goodwin, and Morgan (Claims 11–16)
Claims 11–16 depend from claim 7 and the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Morgan for addressing the specific limitations of these claims.
See Final Act. 12–14. Appellant does not present separate arguments
contesting the rejection of these claims. See Appeal Br. 19.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 11–16 as unpatentable
over Dietz, Goodwin, and Morgan.
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

20
IV. Dietz, Goodwin, and Allen (Claim 17)
Claim 17 depends from claim 7 and the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Allen for addressing the specific limitations of claim 17. See
Final Act. 14–15. Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting
the rejection of this claim. See Appeal Br. 19.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over
Dietz, Goodwin, and Allen.
V. Written Description (Claim 20)
In the Answer, the Examiner enters a new ground of rejection,
rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Claim 20 recites, in relevant part, “the second mirror pane mounted to
the support, and oriented at a fixed acute angle relative to the image surface
to reflect the image surface.” Claims App. 4 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that the phrase “fixed acute angle” is not
found anywhere in the Specification and the Figures do not convey
information that indicate a “fixed acute angle.” Final Act. 3–4.
In response, Appellant submits that its Figure 6 and its accompanying
description provide the requisite written description support. See Reply
Br. 2–4. We reproduce Figure 6, below:
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

21

Figure 6 “is a side elevation view of [a] mirror display assembly.” Spec.
¶ 12. The Specification further describes:
An image surface 200 is provided in the housing 178 upon
the base 184. The rear wall 186 is provided at an acute angle
relative to the base 184 to reflect the image surface 200. The
image surface 200 is also angled relative to the base 184 to
provide an acute angle with the rear wall 186 that is less than that
between the rear wall 186 and the base 184. A first mirror glass
sample 202 and a second mirror glass sample 204 are mounted
upon the rear wall 186.
Id. ¶ 37; see also Reply Br. 3 (quoting the same).
178
202
206
192
200
FIG.6
176
I
I
CJ
182
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

22
According to Appellant, “‘[t]he rear wall 186’ upon which the mirror
glass samples 202, 204 are mounted, ‘is provided at an acute angle relative
to the base 184 to reflect the image surface 200.’” Reply Br. 3 (quoting
Spec. ¶ 35). Based on this description, Appellant submits that the
Specification would have reasonably conveyed to a skilled artisan that
Appellant had possession of the claimed invention. See Reply Br. 4.
Appellant has the stronger position.
Other than explaining that the words “fixed acute angle” are not used
in the Specification or shown in Appellant’s figures, the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained his position. See Ans. 3–4. Appellant’s position, on
the other hand, is reasonably explained. Along with Appellant’s Figures 6
and 8, we find the description of mirrors 202, 204 mounted at an acute angle
relative to base 184 to reflect image surface 200 provides sufficient written
description support.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–7 and 9–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, but reverse the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Appeal 2021-002831
Application 15/331,287

23
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 9,
10, 18–23
103 Dietz, Goodwin 1, 2, 7, 9,
10, 18–23

3–6 103 Dietz, Goodwin,
Chapuis
3–6
11–16 103 Dietz, Goodwin,
Morgan
11–16
17 103 Dietz, Goodwin, Allen 17
20 112(a) Written Description 20
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–23
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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