Whirlpool Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

15208243 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 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.
15/208,243 07/12/2016 Anthony S. Roberts SUB-08746-US-NP 6390
27238 7590 08/04/2020
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 North M63
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
EXAMINER
MAY, ELIZABETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
MAIL@DWPATENTLAW.COM
PatentDocketing@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY S. ROBERTS and FERNANDO DOS SANTOS
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 1–23. 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 Whirlpool
Corporation. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “cooking appliances and, more
particularly, to user interfaces for cooking appliances.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas cooking appliance comprising:
a valve;
a first pipe configured to transport gas to the valve;
a burner;
a second pipe configured to transport gas from the valve
to the burner;
a console including a cutout, the cutout having an edge
defining a shape of the cutout;
a knob including a handle and a bezel, the knob being
configured to control a state of the valve, wherein the bezel has
a rear face and a protrusion extending rearward from the rear
face through the cutout, the protrusion contacts the edge of the
cutout, and the protrusion is one of a plurality of protrusions
extending rearward from the rear face of the bezel through the
cutout; and
a bracket coupling the knob to the valve, wherein the
bracket includes a leg mating with the protrusion, the leg is one
of a plurality of legs of the bracket, and each of the plurality of
legs is configured to mate with a respective one of the plurality
of protrusions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shaffer US 8,662,102 B2 Mar. 4, 2014
Voss US 8,733,204 B2 May 27, 2014
Cadima US 9,038,621 B2 May 26, 2015
Turner US 2017/0089586 A1 Mar. 30, 2017

Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–11, 15, 17–19, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Turner.2
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Turner and Shaffer.
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Turner and Cadima.
Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Turner and Voss.
OPINION
Obviousness—Turner
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a knob including a bezel
having a plurality of protrusions extending rearward from its rear face and a
bracket including a plurality of legs each “configured to mate with a
respective one of the plurality of protrusions.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 10 and 19 each recite, in pertinent part, a knob including
a bezel having a protrusion extending rearward from its rear face and a
bracket including a leg mating with the protrusion and having a longitudinal
axis that “is radially offset from the longitudinal axis of the valve stem.” Id.
at 25, 27.
The Examiner finds that the embodiment of Turner’s Figures 12–14
(i.e., the second embodiment) comprises a knob (knob 28) with a bezel
having a plurality of protrusions extending from its rear face and a bracket

2 The Examiner discusses claim 8 in the detailed explanation of the rejection.
Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

4
(bracket 38′) having a leg mating with the protrusions. Ans. 3–4. The
structures on which the Examiner reads the bezel and protrusions are not
numbered in Turner’s Figures 13 and 14, so the Examiner directs our
attention to “Annotated Fig. 1” (“Annotated Figure 1: Turner, Figure 14”
provided on page 6 of the Non-Final Action dated July 27, 2018) and
“Annotated Fig. 2” (“Annotated Figure 2: Turner, Figure 13” provided on
page 7 of the Non-Final Action dated July 27, 2018). Id. We reproduce the
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1 and Annotated Figure 2 (with an additional
annotation provided by the Board) below.

Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

5

Annotated Figure 1 shows Turner’s Figure 14 with an annotation
denoting the structure the Examiner considers to be a “handle” and an
annotation denoting the structure the Examiner considers to be a “bezel.”
Annotated Figure 2 shows Turner’s Figure 13 with an annotation denoting
the structure the Examiner considers to be “protrusions” extending from the
rear face of the bezel and an annotation (added by the Board) denoting the
structure that we believe the Examiner considers to be the “leg” of the
bracket mating with the protrusions.
Turner does not expressly discuss the ring-shaped structure shown in
Figure 13 mating with the protrusions extending downwardly through the
aperture in cooktop 20. Although the Examiner appears to consider this
ring-shaped structure to be part of bracket 38′, Turner does not describe
bracket 38′ as including this structure. See Turner, Figs. 17–18, ¶ 61
(describing first flange 108 of bracket 38′ having “flat top surface 120 for
mating with the bottom surface 40 of the cooktop 20”).
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

6
The Examiner finds that Turner’s second embodiment (Figs. 12–19)
“does not teach that the leg is one of a plurality of legs of the bracket, and
each of the plurality of legs is configured to mate with a respective one of
the plurality of protrusions,” as called for in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner
also finds that Turner’s second embodiment “does not teach that the leg has
a longitudinal axis, and the longitudinal axis of the leg is radially offset from
the longitudinal axis of the valve stem,” as called for in claims 10 and 19.
Id. at 8, 12.
The Examiner finds that Turner’s first embodiment (Figures 1–4)
comprises a bracket (bracket 38) having a plurality of legs (including first
flange 52 and second flange 543), as called for in claim 1. Ans. 4–5 (citing
Turner, Fig. 4). The Examiner also finds that Turner’s bracket 38 has a leg
(second flange 54) having a longitudinal axis, which “could be drawn for
second flange 54 along either the support legs of the bracket 38 or through
the flange itself” and “is radially offset from the longitudinal axis of the
valve stem” as called for in claims 10 and 19. Id. at 8–9, 12–13.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to combine the
bracket (bracket 38) of the first embodiment of Turner with the bezel
arrangement of the second embodiment of Turner “by combining prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” because
this “does no more than yield predictable results of providing an alternate
method of connecting two elements of the disclosed invention, since it has
been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known

3 Turner’s “second flange 54” comprises two discrete elements on opposite
sides of bracket 38, thus constituting what the Examiner considers to be a
plurality of legs. See Turner, Fig. 4.
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

7
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” Ans. 5–6, 9, 13.
Appellant contends that “[i]f one were to select bracket 38, he or she
would also be required to select the corresponding structure disclosed in
Turner” and that “it really is not clear how [the first and second
embodiments of Turner] are even being combined . . . so as to meet the
[claimed] invention.” Appeal Br. 8; see id. at 9, 11–12 (reiterating
essentially the same arguments). Appellant argues that, as shown in Figure
4 of Turner, “brackets 38 are not in contact with the bezels, as can be seen
from the rear brackets 38.” Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner explains that “Turner is silent as to the interaction
between the bezel and the valve as shown in Figure 4,” and that,
“[t]herefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to
the [remainder] of the Turner reference for a means to connect the bezel to
the console, and would consider the connection mechanism displayed in
Figure 13, wherein the bezel is shown to connect to the bracket via clips
which extend through the cutout.” Ans. 22.
Appellant is correct that Turner’s Figure 4 does not show any
interaction (i.e. mating) between the bezel and second flange 54 of bracket
38. Turner’s Figure 4 omits cooktop 20 to more clearly illustrate other
aspects of the control panel. See Turner ¶ 41. Figure 4 appears to show a
bezel on the top side of where cooktop 20 would be located (much like the
bezel of Figures 13 and 14, as identified by the Examiner in Annotated
Figure 1, disposed on the top side of cooktop 20), based on the level of the
top surface of second flange 54, which Turner describes as “coupl[ing] to the
bottom surface 40 of the cooktop 20 via one or more fasteners (not shown).”
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

8
See id. ¶ 40. Figure 4 also appears to show a round, or ring-shaped,
structure just below where cooktop 20 would be located (much like the ring-
shaped structure shown in Turner’s Figure 13 mating with the clips
identified by the Examiner as “protrusions” in Annotated Figure 2) and
disposed within second flange aperture 68 defined within second flange 54
of bracket 38. See Turner, Figs. 4, 8; ¶¶ 45, 54 (disclosing that “the second
flange aperture is larger than the cooktop aperture 30”).
Turner does not number or discuss the bezel or ring-shaped structures
at all in regard to either the first embodiment or the second embodiment.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would likely infer from
Figure 4 and Figures 13–15 of Turner that the structure that the Examiner
identifies as a “bezel” is secured to cooktop 20 via clips extending through
the cooktop cutout and mating with a ring-shaped structure, distinct from
bracket 38 or bracket 38′, fixed to bottom surface 40 of cooktop 20 in both
embodiments. Thus, even accepting the Examiner’s theory that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to the [remainder] of the
Turner reference for a means to connect the bezel to the console, and would
consider the connection mechanism displayed in Figure 13, wherein the
bezel is shown to connect to the bracket via clips which extend through the
cutout” (Ans. 22), this would not result in second flange 54 of Turner’s
bracket 38 mating with clips (or protrusions) extending from the bezel.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to provide a reason, with
rational underpinnings, why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to combine the teachings of Turner’s first and second
embodiments so as to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1, in particular, a
knob including a bezel having a plurality of protrusions extending rearward
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

9
from its rear face and a bracket including a plurality of legs each “configured
to mate with a respective one of the plurality of protrusions,” or the subject
matter of claims 10 and 19, in particular, a knob including a bezel having a
protrusion extending rearward from its rear face and a bracket including a
leg mating with the protrusion and having a longitudinal axis that “is radially
offset from the longitudinal axis of the valve stem.” Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, or their dependent
claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 22, as unpatentable over Turner.
Obviousness—Turner and Shaffer, Cadima, or Voss
The Examiner’s application of Shaffer, Cadima, and Voss in rejecting
claims 3–5, 7, 12–14, 16, 20, 21, and 23, each of which depends from claim
1, claim 10, or claim 19, does not make up for the aforementioned
deficiency in the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 as unpatentable over
Turner. See Ans. 14–20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 20 as unpatentable over Turner and Shaffer; the
rejection of claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Turner and Cadima;
or the rejection of claims 21 and 23 as unpatentable over Turner and Voss.
Appeal 2019-006980
Application 15/208,243

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 8–11,
15, 17–19, 22
103 Turner 1, 2, 6, 8–11,
15, 17–19, 22
3, 4, 12, 13,
20
103 Turner, Shaffer 3, 4, 12, 13,
20
5, 7, 14, 16 103 Turner, Cadima 5, 7, 14, 16
21, 23 103 Turner, Voss 21, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–23

REVERSED