W.C. BRADLEY CO.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 26, 2021

2020006072 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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.
15/222,617 07/28/2016 MALLIK AHMED 012581_00276_PRV_UTL_CON 9917
28827 7590 04/26/2021
GABLEGOTWALS
110 North Elgin Avenue, Suite 200
TULSA, OK 74120-1495
EXAMINER
JONES, LOGAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2021 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):
iplaw@gablelaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MALLIK AHMED
____________

Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,6171
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
W.C. BRADLEY CO. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,617

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “[a] multi-part cooking grate.”
(Spec., Abstract.)
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A multi-part cooking grate comprising:
a first upper sub-grate having a first plurality of cooking
members retained in a fixed relationship relative to one another
by at least one upper cross-member, the first upper sub-grate
defining a first cooking surface characterized by a first horizontal
spacing between adjacent ones of the first plurality of cooking
members; and
a second lower sub-grate having a second plurality of
cooking members retained in a fixed relationship relative to one
another by at least one lower cross member, the second lower
sub-grate defining a second cooking surface characterized by a
second horizontal spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality
of cooking members;
wherein the first and second sub-grates are configured to
fit together such that their respective cooking members interfit to
define a third cooking surface characterized by a third non-
overlapped horizontal spacing between adjacent respective
cooking members and that heats with a relatively high degree of
radiant heating relative to convective heating; and
wherein the first and second cooking surfaces heat with a
relatively low degree of radiant heating relative to convective
heating
wherein the at least one upper cross member retains the
first plurality of cooking members by a plurality of cutouts that
receive a respective cutout portion of each of the first plurality of
cooking members;
wherein the at least one lower cross member retains the
second plurality of cooking members by a plurality of cutouts
that receive a respective cutout portion of each of the first
plurality of cooking members; and
Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,617

3
wherein the first and second sub-grates are separable
without tools and without altering spacing of their respective first
plurality of cooking member and second plurality of cooking
members.

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Berger (US 4,403,541, iss.
Sept. 13, 1983), Sünkel (DE 196 33 296 A1, pub. Feb. 26, 1998), and
Johnston (US 2007/0125357 A1, pub. June 7, 2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view
of Berger and Sünkel.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

2 “Claims 13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim.” (Final Action 19 (emphasis omitted).) Therefore, we treat the
inclusion of claims 13 and 15 in the statement on page 1 of the Final Action
that “[c]laim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected” as a typographical error.
Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,617

4
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). “[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418
(brackets in original) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that “Berger discloses a multi-part cooking grate comprising: a first
sub-grate having a first plurality of cooking members (Figure 2, the first,
third, and fifth of elements 24 for example) retained in a fixed relationship
relative to one another by at least one cross-member (Figure 2, element 26).”
(Final Action 3.) The Examiner finds that Berger also discloses “a second
sub-grate having a second plurality of cooking members (Figure 2, the
second, fourth, and sixth of elements 24 for example) retained in a fixed
relationship relative to one another by at least one cross member (Figure 2,
element 26).” (Id.) Figure 2 of Berger is reproduced below.

Figure 2 “is a perspective fragmentary view showing a portion of [Berger’s]
novel cooking grill.” (Berger, col. 3, ll. 4–5.)
Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,617

5
The Examiner finds that Sünkel teaches “wherein the first sub-grate is
an upper sub-grate” and “wherein the second sub-grate is a lower sub-grate.”
(Final Action 5 (citing Sünkel Figs. 2, 5, 7, 8).) The Examiner explains that
Sünkel
states “In known cooking grills, the grill bars can be fixed to the
frame members. However, it is also possible to releasably
dispose the grill bars to the frame members to clean the grill bars
better.” Therefore, having separable upper and lower sub-grates
will simplify cleaning of the cooking members by providing
increased spacing between the individual cooking members.

(Id. at 7.)3
Appellant argues that “[c]laims 1, 7, and 14 requires [sic] first and
second sub-grates, which the examiner contends is satisfied by Berger,
which teaches a single unitary grate.” (Appeal Br. 14.) Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s rationale for the combination is Sünkel’s statement,
noted above, regarding cleaning the grill bars. (Appeal Br. 14–15.)
Appellant argues that
this is not the modification proposed by the examiner nor the
limitation called for by the claims, nor does it rationalize such a
modification. Removal of individual cooking members does not
result in first and second sub-grates with the claimed cooking
characteristics relative to the combined grate. Further,
suggesting to disassemble the grate for cleaning to does [sic, does
not] rationally lead to the conclusion that one would then
reassemble the product in an entirely different way.

3 Sünkel is a German language document. The Examiner appears to be
quoting from a translation not of record. The translation of record is a
machine translation. In relevant part, it recites: “In known grill grates, the
grill bars can be fixed to the frame elements. However, it is also possible to
detachably arrange the grill bars on the frame members in order to better
clean the grill bars.” (Sünkel machine translation at 1.)
Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,617

6
(Id. at 15.)
The Examiner does not point to any suggestion in Berger to make a
two grate structure. At best, the reasoning provided by the Examiner for
modifying Berger from a single grate to first and second sub-grates is to
simplify cleaning. (Appeal Br. 7; Answer 4.) To support this reasoning, the
Examiner directs us to Sünkel’s teaching of grill bars detachable from the
frame members to allow for better cleaning of the grill bars. (Appeal Br. 7.)
But the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why a teaching of grill bars
detachable from frame members would motivate one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide two separate frames, incorporate every other grill bar in each
frame, and incorporate the grill bars in each frame in a non-detachable
manner. Although we recognize that Sünkel discloses two separate grates,
the Examiner does not rely on Sünkel to teach two separate grates; rather,
the Examiner relies on Sünkel to teach that the two grates that the Examiner
finds in the Berger reference are upper and lower sub-grates, and that the
grates are separable without tools. (See Final Action 3, 5, 7.)
In sum, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why one would
have modified Berger to make a two grate structure which, under the
Examiner’s reasoning, is a predicate for the further modification in view of
Sünkel and Johnston. (Id. at 3–11.) Therefore, we will reverse the rejection
of claim 1. Independent claims 7 and 14 include similar language and for
similar reasons we will reverse the rejection of independent claims 7 and 14,
and dependent claims 3–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18.

Appeal 2020-006072
Application 15/222,617

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 8,
9, 11, 12,
14, 16, 18
103(a) Berger, Sünkel,
Johnston
1, 3–6, 8,
9, 11, 12,
14, 16, 18
7 103(a) Berger, Sünkel 7
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11,
12, 14, 16,
18

REVERSED