Ex Parte Fischer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2017

13276343 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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.
13/276,343 10/19/2011 Stefan Fischer 2010P02088US 7153
46726 7590 03/13/2017
RS»H Home. Annlianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
GRAF, IRINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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 STEFAN FISCHER, STEFAN KASBAUER, and
NORBERT NAYLOR
Appeal 2016-002276
Application 13/276,343
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 BSH Hausgerate GmbH is stated to be the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-002276
Application 13/276,343
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter (emphasis added
to identify disputed limitation):
1. A dishwasher, comprising:
a wash container for holding items to be washed, said wash container
having a front loading opening, and said washing container having washing
container walls;
a reinforcement element to reinforce the wash container along at least
one front edge region of the wash container, said reinforcement element
positioned adjacent to at least one of the washing container walls; and
a cover arrangement to at least partially cover at least one gap formed
outside a water-conducting region of the wash container between the wash
container and at least one surface running along the front edge region of the
wash container, said cover arrangement comprising at least one cover
element having a fastening segment which is defined by an I-shaped cross
section, said I-shaped fastening segment extending in a longitudinal
direction parallel to the at least one surface, said I-shaped fastening
segment extending into and being fixed in a fastening segment having a Id-
shaped cross section defined by at least one arm, and the reinforcement
element comprising said U-shaped fastening segment,
wherein a tongue and groove connection is formed between the I-
shaped fastening segment and the U-shaped fastening segment.
App. Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5—7, 9—17, and 25—30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Haeberle (U.S. 2009/0288690 Al,
published Nov. 26, 2009) (Final Action 6—9).
The Examiner also rejected claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Oppel (GB 2 201 886 A, published Sept. 14, 1988)
(Final Action 9—11), and further rejected claims 1, 6, and 18—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oppel (Final Action 14, 15).
2
Appeal 2016-002276
Application 13/276,343
The Examiner also maintains the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of various dependent claims as set out in the Final Rejection (see also
App. Br. 20-23, 25, 26).
The dispositive issue in this case is whether either Haeberle or Oppel
identically discloses a “tongue and groove” connection as recited in claim 1,
and/or whether it would have been an obvious design choice to modify
Oppel to have such a tongue and groove connection as required in each of
the claims.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
[Ujnless a reference discloses within the four comers of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing
claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
“[D] tiring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. ofSci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in
patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable constmction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.) (citations omitted); Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
constmction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
3
Appeal 2016-002276
Application 13/276,343
the meaning of a disputed term.’” (Citation omitted)).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown how either of
Haeberle or Oppel identically discloses “tongue and groove connection” as
required by the disputed claims. A preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants’ position for reasons adequately set forth in their briefs (see App.
Br.; Reply Br. generally.
Appellants urge that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
the structures of either Haeberle or Oppel as a tongue and groove connection
of a fastener I-shaped segment into the U-shaped fastening segment of a
reinforcement member as required by the claims (App. Br. 18—26).
Appellants state that in light of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that a tongue and groove connection of these elements
requires the I-shaped segment be inserted into the U-shaped segment in
order to form such a connection (Spec. H 7, 9, 10, 44; Fig. 4; App. Br. 11,
12). One of ordinary skill also understands that “a tongue and groove
connection” requires that the tongue to be inserted into the groove with a
tailored fit, form fit, force fit, friction fit, or material fit (e.g., Spec. 110).
The Examiner even tacitly admits that the references do not anticipate
the claims if the claim terms are given the interpretation urged by Appellants
(Final Action 7, 10 (explaining if Appellants amended the claim to more
definitively recite the I-shaped fastening segment extended into the U-
shaped channel “to form a tongue-and-groove connection, it may overcome
[both of the] the current rejection[s]”)).
4
Appeal 2016-002276
Application 13/276,343
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has taken an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the aforementioned claim limitations
when considered in light of the Specification (e.g., Spec. 7, 44; Fig. 4) for
the reasons explained in the Appeal and Reply Briefs and, in doing so, erred
in finding that either of Haeberle or Oppel discloses the claimed subject
matter. As stated by Appellants:
Although not explicitly stated in the claim, it is implicit
that the “U-shaped fastening segment” represents the “groove”
portion of the “tongue and groove connection” and that the “I-
shaped fastening segment” represents the “tongue” portion.
Thus, to anticipate this feature of claim 1 the main body portion
102 of Haeberle, which was cited for the “I-shaped fastening
segment,” must be “extending into and being fixed in” the
portions indicated as the arms, which were cited for “a
fastening segment having a U-shaped cross section defined by
at least one arm.” Also, the main body portion 102 and the
portions indicated as the “arms” must form a “tongue and
groove connection.” However, the main body portion 102 of
Haeberle is not positioned between the “arms” in a manner that
would facilitate a “tongue and groove connection.” Thus, if the
“groove” portion of the “tongue and groove connection,” i.e.,
the “U-shaped fastening segment,” is not shown, then Haeberle
cannot disclose the related features.
(App. Br. 11-12).
Likewise, Appellants state that with respect to the 102 rejection based
on Oppel:
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argued that the Examiner’s
interpretation of these claim terms, which underlies the
rejection, are so broad as to be inconsistent with the meaning of
these claim terms as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the specification and that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not find that the zig-zag shape of
Oppel’s foot part 8 is “I-shaped,” that the edge 6 of the side
5
Appeal 2016-002276
Application 13/276,343
wall 5 has a “U-shaped fastening segment,” or that Fig. 2
depicts a “tongue and groove connection.”
(Reply Br. 9).
As such, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection based on either
reference as applied to independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claim 1 (as
well as all dependent claims not argued separately) are reversed.
A preponderance of the evidence also supports Appellants’ position
that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 based on Oppel that “it
would have been an obvious matter of design choice” to have the required I-
shaped and U-shaped elements as recited in the claim is deficient (App. Br.
23-25; Reply Br. 15).
The Examiner fails to rely upon any evidence that the other applied
prior art teaches or suggests the use of the tongue and groove connection as
claimed. Thus, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the remaining
claims are also reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
6