Ex Parte Elkasevic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2017

13478274 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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.
13/478,274 05/23/2012 Suad Elkasevic 2011P04002US 7225
46726 7590 05/08/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2017 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 SUAD ELKASEVIC
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
Technology Center 3600
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—4, 6—10, 12—16, and 18—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a domestic appliance hinge assembly with
damper alignment spacer bushings. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hinge assembly for pivotably attaching a door to a domestic
appliance having an appliance body, the hinge assembly
comprising:
a hinge body having two side walls;
a damper having a central longitudinal axis and including
a damper cylinder, the damper cylinder having a rod partially
located inside the cylinder and partially located outside the
cylinder, and a coil spring located inside the cylinder and around
the rod such that the rod extends through a center of a coil of the
coil spring, the damper damping the movement of the rod relative
to the cylinder, the rod extending along the central longitudinal
axis of the damper, and the damper being pivotably attached to
the hinge body at an attachment end;
a foot pivotably attached to the damper at an end of the
damper opposite to the attachment end, the foot being configured
to engage a foot receiving portion of the appliance body such that
the hinge body and the door pivot relative to the appliance body;
a pivot member that locationally fixes an eyelet at the
attachment end of the damper to the hinge body; and
two spacer bushings located on opposite sides of the eyelet
and between the eyelet and the side walls of the hinge body,
wherein the pivot member extends through the side walls,
the spacer bushings and the eyelet, and
the spacer bushings prevent the eyelet from moving in a
longitudinal direction of the pivot member.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Nicely
North
US 6,681,702 B1 Jan. 27, 2004
US 2004/0033105 A1 Feb. 19, 2004
2
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
White US 2011/0017191 A1 Jan. 27,2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over White and Nicely.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 25—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over White, Nicely, and North.
OPINION
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent and are all argued jointly. Appeal
Br. 10-13. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)
(iv).
The Examiner finds that White teaches the hinge assembly of claim 1,
with the exception of “two spacer bushing[s] located on opposite sides of the
eyelet and between the eyelet and the side walls of the hinge body.” Final
Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds that the use of “spacer bushings . . . [is]
notoriously old and well known in the mechanical arts.” Id. at 3. The
Examiner further finds that Nicely teaches the claimed bushings and that it
would have been obvious to use Nicely’s bushings in White’s device to
“secure the position eyelet and prevent the damper (30) from hitting or
interfering with the hinge body by moving side to side during the pivotal
movement of the damper.” Id. at 5.
The relevant question before us is whether it would have been obvious
to locate two spacer bushings on opposite sides of an eyelet to secure the
position of the eyelet on a pivot member in the particular application of
“domestic appliance hinges.” Appellant argues it would not be obvious
3
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
because Nicely is non-analogous to White and further, because they are non-
analogous, the Examiner is improperly relying on hindsight to formulate the
rejection. Appeal Br. 10-12. But, Appellant does not contest the
Examiner’s finding that “spacer bushings ... are notoriously old and well
known in the mechanical arts.” Final Act. 3. This finding is evidenced by
Nicely, but not dependent thereon.
The Examiner’s rejection falls flatly within the Supreme Court’s
teachings in KSR that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007); see also, Final Act. 5 (there is no “unforeseen result” in the
combination.). Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellant also argues that ‘“the discovery of the source of a
problem’” can be patentable, even if the solution is obvious. Appeal Br. 12
(citing In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585 (CCPA 1969)). Appellant is
correct that ‘“the discovery of the source of a problem’” can be patentable,
but the Federal Circuit has explained that the holding is Sponnoble is limited
to situations where the true cause of the problem was misunderstood. Cross
Med. Prod., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Our predecessor court held that the invention was non-
obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have chosen the
solution without recognizing the true cause of the problem,” where the true
cause of the problem was misunderstood.). Appellant has provided no
evidence that the problem was misunderstood, but only argues that a new
4
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
problem was discovered. See Appeal Br. 12. Thus, we are not informed of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant also argues “that Nicely does not teach or suggest that. . .
spacer bushings (spacers 140a, 140b) prevent wheel 136 from moving in a
longitudinal direction of bolt 144” according the requirement of the claim.
Appeal Br. 13 h However, Appellant’s arguments are against Nicely
individually, where the rejection is based on the combination of White and
Nicely. Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 4—5. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted) (explaining that obviousness must be considered in
light of “what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”). For this reason, we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—10, 12—16, and 18—27 are
affirmed.
1 This same argument is presented multiple times with respect to the
patentability of claims 1, 7, and 13; claims 2, 8, and 14; and then claims 3, 6,
9, 12, 15, 18, and 25—27. Appeal Br. 13—15.
5
Appeal 2015-006534
Application 13/478,274
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6