Ex Parte ARSLANKIRAY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2018

15360208 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/360,208 11/23/2016 24131 7590 12/04/2018 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PO BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ZIY A ARSLANKIRA Y 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. BSH-2016P02005 2430 EXAMINER TRAN, HANH VAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 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): boxoa@patentusa.com docket@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZIY A ARSLANKIRA Y, ERCAN EN GIN, and TANZER YILDIZGOECER 1 Appeal 2018-005366 Application 15/360,208 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, and 15. Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 BSH Hausgerate GmbH ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided under 37 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Brief 1 ("Br."), filed Nov. 9, 2017. Appeal2018-005366 Application 15/3 60,208 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter "relates to a home appliance door, for example a home chiller appliance door." Spec. 1:5-6,2 Figs. 1--4. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A home appliance door, comprising: at least one base body, the base body comprising at least one side wall with at least one setback for defining a door handle recess; at least one rear edge protrusion from said base body delimiting said setback, said rear edge protrusion containing insulation material; at least one front cover element which is implemented separately from said base body and connected to said base body in an assembled state, said at least one front cover element delimiting the at least one setback on a side opposite that of the at least one rear protrusion; and said at least one front cover element and said base body cooperating to form a door handle. THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Cho (US 2016/0209110 Al, published July 21, 2016) and Jun (US 2012/0121865 Al, published May 17, 2012). II. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Cho, Jun, and Lee (US 2013/0099650 Al, published Apr. 25, 2013). 2 Specification ("Spec."), filed Nov. 23, 2016. 2 Appeal2018-005366 Application 15/3 60,208 ANALYSIS Rejection I- Obviousness over Cho and Jun The Examiner finds that Cho discloses a home appliance door ( door assembly 100) including "at least one rear edge protrusion from [a] base body (defined by rear plate 117, shown in Fig. 4) delimiting [a] setback." Final Act. 3. 3 Appellant contends that "Cho fails to disclose a rear edge protrusion from the base body which delimits the setback." Br. 5. In the Answer, the Examiner includes a marked-up version of Figure 28 of Cho. Ans. 6. 4 In the annotated Figure, the Examiner's one added arrow points to an upper portion of an unnumbered element (which appears to correspond to rear plate 117, based on our review of Figure 4 of Cho in which rear plate 117 is shown) and indicates that this portion corresponds to the claimed rear edge protrusion. See id. Also in the annotated Figure, the Examiner's other added arrow points to a space formed between what appears to be door cap 120 and door cap supporting part 130 (which are both better shown and labeled in Figure 4 of Cho) and indicates that this space corresponds to the claimed setback. See id. Claim 1 recites "at least one rear edge protrusion from said base body delimiting said setback." Br. 10, Claims App. ( emphasis added). The Specification does not explicitly define the term "delimiting" or the term "delimit." See Spec., passim. The Specification does, however, state that " [ t ]he term 'cooperate' is to mean, in particular, directly delimiting and/ or 3 Final Office Action ("Final Act."), dated July 7, 2017. 4 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), dated Feb. 21, 2018. 3 Appeal2018-005366 Application 15/3 60,208 forming." Spec. 6: 17-18 ( emphasis added). The Specification discloses that: ( 1) "[ t ]he rear edge protrusion 20a delimits the setback 16a" (Spec. 10:6-7); (2) "the front cover element 26a delimits the setback 16a" (id. at 10:19-20); and (3) "[t]he side element 22a delimits the setback 16a" (id. at 11:14--15). In Appellant's Figure 3, an arrow points to a space, formed and bounded by a portion of the surface of front cover element 26a, the surface of side wall 14a, and a portion of the surface of rear edge protrusion 20a, that corresponds to setback 16a. See id. at Fig. 3. Thus, the Specification and Figure 3 show that setback 16a is formed by or has a boundary from at least a portion of the surface of rear edge protrusion 20a, in combination with front cover element 26 and side element 22a. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "delimit" is "to fix or define the limits of. " 5 We thus construe the term "delimiting" as "fixing or defining the limits or boundary of," which is consistent with the term's use in the Specification and the drawings. As such, claim 1 requires that the rear edge protrusion (together with the front cover element) forms or defines the boundary of the setback. Although the Examiner's annotated Figure 28 of Cho shows what the Examiner considers as a rear edge protrusion that is coupled to door cap 120, it does not show that the rear edge protrusion forms or defines any part of the boundary of what the Examiner indicates as the setback in Cho. At best, the boundary of the setback is formed by the door cap 120 and the door cap support part 130. In other words, there is no evidence of record nor 5 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delimit (last accessed Nov. 20, 2018). 4 Appeal2018-005366 Application 15/3 60,208 technical reasoning provided by the Examiner to support the finding that Cho discloses "at least one rear edge protrusion from said base body delimiting said setback," as claimed. The Examiner finds that "Jun teaches the idea of providing the outside surface of a base body of a refrigerator with at least one front cover element which is implemented separately from the base body and connected to the base body in an assembled state for aesthetic purpose[s]." Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner does not rely on Jun to remedy the deficiencies in Cho. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 14, and 15, depending therefrom. Rejection II - Obviousness over Cho, Jun, and Lee Claim 10 depends indirectly from claim 1. Br. 11, Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Cho, Jun, and Lee is based on the same unsupported findings in Cho discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner does not rely on Lee to remedy the deficiencies of Cho. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Cho, Jun, and Lee. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 6- 11, 14, and 15. REVERSED 5