Ex Parte Almolda Fandos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

12486081 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

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.
12/486,081 06/17/2009 Manuel Almolda Fandos 2008P04735US 4439
46726 7590 06/22/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
TRAN, THIEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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
Ex parte MANUEL ALMOLDA FANDOS,
ALFONSO LORENTE PEREZ, DAVID ORTIZ SAINZ, and
CARMELO PINA GADEA
Appeal 2016-0037451
Application 12/486,0812
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 4—10, and 13—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Aug. 5, 2015), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 5, 2015), and the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 5, 2015).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgerate GmbH.” Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003745
Application 12/486,081
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he invention relates to a cooktop with a
burner box and a heat shield attached to a bottom of the burner box. The
invention further relates to a household appliance with the cooktop and a
method for assembling the cooktop as well as to a method for installing the
cooktop.” Spec. 1,11. 7—10.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 4—10, and 13—20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed claims and recites:
1. A cooktop for receipt into a cooktop receptacle, the
cooktop comprising:
a burner box;
a heat shield pivotably attached to a bottom of the burner
box;
a lock for locking the heat shield in a transport position,
wherein the heat shield is self-pivotable under action of a
gravitational force from the transport position to an operational
position after unlocking the lock and in which the heat shield
contacts a floor of the cooktop receptacle, and when in the
operational position the heat shield is pivoted further from the
bottom of the burner box than in the transport position.
Br. 14.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, and 8—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fandos3 in view of Harrod4 and Antoniello.5
3 Fandos et al., US 2008/0017630 Al, pub. Jan. 24, 2008.
4 Harrod et al., US 2003/0094171 Al, pub. May 22, 2003.
5 Antoniello, US 2004/0194777 Al, pub. Oct. 7, 2004.
2
Appeal 2016-003745
Application 12/486,081
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fandos in view of Harrod, Antoniello, and Uhlrig.6
3. The Examiner rejects claims 13—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fandos in view of Harrod and Uhlrig.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fandos in view of Harrod, Uhlrig, and Morris.7
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue all rejections together and group the claims into a
single group. See Br. 6—13. We select claim 1 as representative of the
claims, and claims 4—10 and 13—20 stand or fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fandos teaches a
cooktop with a burner box and heat shield as claimed, except that Fandos
does not disclose that the heat shield is pivotably attached to the bottom of
the burner box or the presence of a lock as claimed. Final Act. 3^4. The
Examiner relies on Harrod as disclosing a heat shield pivotably attached to a
burner box, and the Examiner relies on Antoniello as disclosing a lock as
claimed. Id. at 4—5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Fandos based on the disclosures of Harrod and
Antoniello. Id. The Examiner also indicates that it would have been
obvious to produce the proposed combination because it merely applies a
known technique in a known device that would yield predictable results and
it would increase the versatility of the device. Ans. 6.
6 Uhlrig, US 2,229,945, iss. Jan. 28, 1941.
7 Morris, US 3,878,585, iss. Apr. 22, 1975.
3
Appeal 2016-003745
Application 12/486,081
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments, and as discussed below, we
are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants first argue that “there is no showing by the Office that the
asserted combination teaches, discloses or suggests a feature whereby a heat
shield is self-pivotable ... to an operational position in which it contacts the
bottom of the cooktop receptacle which receives the cooktop.” Br. 9. In
support, Appellants assert:
Again, Fandos lacks a heat shield which is pivotably or
hingedly attached to the cooktop and which is self-pivotable
under action of a gravitational force. The Harrod purportedly
discloses a pivotable connection, while Antoniello purportedly
discloses a heat shield 40 movable by action of its own weight.
The asserted combination via Antoniello, however, lacks any
disclosure that the heat shield is pivotably movable to a position
in which the heat shield contacts the bottom of the cooktop
receptacle which receives the cooktop. The Antoniello design is
completely mute regarding physical contact between the heat
shield and the bottom of the cooktop receptacle. So the result
device based upon the asserted combination of Fandos, Harrod,
and Antoniello would lack a heat shield that contacts the bottom
of the cooktop receptacle.
Br. 9. We are not persuaded of error by this argument, at least because it
attacks the references individually and fails to address the Examiner’s
finding that Fandos discloses that “in an operational position, the heat shield
(shielding element 68) contacts a floor of the cooktop receptacle (Fig 1,
element 68 contacts floor of furniture unit 16).” Final Act. 3. Thus,
Appellants’ argument does not fairly address the rejection before us, which
relies on Fandos’s disclosure of a heat shield contacting a floor of the
cooktop receptacle to show that such feature would have been obvious in the
combination of art proposed.
4
Appeal 2016-003745
Application 12/486,081
Next, Appellants argue that the proposed combination of art would
change the principle of operation of Fandos. Br. 10. Appellants assert that
Fandos’s device is designed “to secure the shielding element 68 in a manner
that does not require movement, especially in a pivotable manner,” and
indicates that the proposed combination of art would “require the total
deconstruction of the meaning and scope of the Fandos design.” Br. 11.
Appellants assert that changing the screw-type connection between Fandos’s
heat shield and base plate to a pivoting connection “would result in a
complete change in philosophy of Fandos.” Id. at 12. We disagree. Rather,
we agree with the Examiner that modifying Fandos’s device as proposed
would not change any principle of operation of that design because each
element of the device would continue to function the same, e.g., the heat
shield would continue to function as a heat shield in the operating position.
Ans. 7. Further, Appellants do not explain adequately why the replacement
of the screw connection in Fandos with a hinged connection, as proposed by
the Examiner, would destroy Fandos’s device. In particular, Appellants do
not point to any critical reason why Fandos’s heat shield is and must be
connected to the base plate via a screw-type connection.
Further, Appellants also argue there is no “causal link between [the
references] that would inspire one of ordinary skill to change” Fandos’s
device, and thus, the combination is based on impermissible hindsight.
Br. 11—12. We are not persuaded. First, we note that the Examiner need not
find a specific motivation for the proposed combination in the art. See In re
Kotzab, 111 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Appellants also do not
address the reasoning providing by the Examiner, that the proposed
combination would have applied “a known technique to a known device
5
Appeal 2016-003745
Application 12/486,081
ready for improvement [that] would yield predictable results” and would
increase “the versatility of the heat shield.” See Ans. 6. Finally, Appellants
have not explained adequately how the rejection is based on hindsight, and
more specifically, Appellants do not persuade us that the rejection is based
on information gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error and we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejections of claims 4—10 and
13—20, for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments, for the
same reasons.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 4—10, and 13—20 for the
reasons set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6