2020003438 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020)

Whirlpool Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 10, 2020

2020003438 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020)

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. 15/176,569 06/08/2016 Dean A. Martin PAT-IP-00022-2006- US-CNT6 6885 135389 7590 12/10/2020 Whirlpool Corporation/Nyemaster Nyemaster Goode, P.C. 2000 North M-63 MD3601 Benton Harbor, MI 49022 EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2020 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): PatentDocketing@whirlpool.com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com ptomail@nyemaster.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DEAN A. MARTIN and CHAD J. ROTTER Appeal 2020-003438 Application 15/176,569 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, 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 1–10 and 21. 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 the real party in interest as Whirlpool Corporation. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2020-003438 Application 15/176,569 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a refrigerator. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A refrigerator comprising: a refrigerator compartment; a freezer compartment; an ice making compartment in the refrigerator compartment; and an ice dispenser having a chute, whereby said ice making compartment has an opening in mating engagement with the chute; and a seal between the opening and the chute to prevent cold air from passing from the ice making compartment to the refrigerator compartment. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Jacobus US 3,572,053 Mar. 23, 1971 Fisher US 5,272,888 Dec. 28, 1993 Lee US 6,964,177 B2 Nov. 15, 2005 Adamski US 2006/0090496 A1 May 4, 2006 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1–7, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Jacobus. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Jacobus, and Fisher. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Jacobus, and Adamski. 2 Appellant addresses objections to the Specification and Drawings, and Appellant notes it has petitioned the Office to address those objections. Appeal Br. 8–9. We do not address those Petitions. See MPEP § 1002.02(c). Appeal 2020-003438 Application 15/176,569 3 OPINION Appellant argues claims 1–7, 10, and 21 as a group. See Appeal Br. 9–12. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–7, 10, and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant relies on the arguments presented with respect to claim 1 for the patentability of claims 8 and 9. Appeal Br. 12–13. The Examiner finds that Lee teaches each feature of claim 1, but “fails to explicitly disclose a seal between the opening and the chute to prevent cold air from passing from the ice making compartment to the refrigerator compartment.” Final Act. 5. There is no dispute that, like Appellant’s refrigerator, Lee’s refrigerator includes ice making compartment 300 in its refrigerator compartment 200 with opening 320 for the passage of ice. See Id. (citing Lee, Figs. 5–6B). There is also no dispute that, like Appellant’s refrigerator, Lee’s refrigerator has chute 510 in its door that mates with opening 320 to dispense ice outside of the refrigerator. See id. While it makes sense that this is a feature that would be included at the interface between opening 320 and chute 510, the Examiner notes that Lee does not expressly teach this feature. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that “Jacobus teaches that in the art of refrigerators including ice makers supplying ice to an ice chute (48) located in the door, it is a known method to provide a seal (60) between the mating surfaces (as illustrated below) to prevent cold air from passing from the ice making compartment to the refrigerator compartment.” Id. at 5–6. Appellant does not dispute this finding. Rather, Appellant’s dispute concerns whether it would have been obvious to include a seal in the space between Lee’s opening 320 and chute 510. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appeal 2020-003438 Application 15/176,569 4 With respect to the rationale for modifying Lee’s teachings to include a seal, the Examiner finds that “Jacobus teaches [its sealing arrangement] limits air circulation between the exterior and the interior of the cabinet,” which “is strong evidence that modifying Lee thus would produce predictable results and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation that such a modification would provide the same predictable results to the apparatus of Lee.” Final Act. 10 (citing Jacobus 4:57–62). We agree. Jacobus has its ice dispenser 7 located in the freezer compartment 1, rather than in the refrigerator compartment like Appellant and Lee. The cited portion of Jacobus explains that its seal 60 is provided to “limit[] air circulation between the exterior and the interior of the [refrigerator] cabinet.” Jacobus 4:57–58. Jacobus later explains that “[w]ith this space [between the front of dispenser 7 and inner panel 4 of its door 2] sealed, any flow of air between the cabinet and the ambient atmosphere is restricted to a path through the ice dispenser or more specifically through the dispensing means duct 23.” Id. at 4:67–70. Appellant alleges fault in the proposed combination of teachings because Jacobus does not address limiting air circulation between its ice dispenser and refrigerator (rather than between the ice dispenser and the ambient atmosphere). Appeal Br. 11. This is unpersuasive because the Examiner simply relies on Jacobus as teaching the known use of a seal between an ice dispenser and a door mounted ice chute. Final Act. 5–6. That teaching is not diminished by Jacobus locating its ice maker in the freezer compartment instead of the refrigerator compartment. Notably, Appeal 2020-003438 Application 15/176,569 5 Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding predictable results or reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, the compartment (whether it be a refrigerator or freezer compartment) that houses the ice maker being isolated from the ambient exterior environment to inhibit air flow from that compartment to ambient is an express teaching of Jacobus, which Appellant expressly acknowledges as noted above. This, itself, provides sufficient rationale for the proposed combination of teachings provided by the Examiner. Appellant fails to apprise us of Examiner error. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 10, 21 103 Lee, Jacobus 1–7, 10, 21 8 Lee, Jacobus, Fisher 8 9 Lee, Jacobus, Adamski 9 Overall Outcome 1–10, 21 Appeal 2020-003438 Application 15/176,569 6 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED