Ex Parte Ilgin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 2018

14391004 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

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. 14/391,004 10/06/2014 Soner Ilgin 101670-0417397 3702 20350 7590 02/14/2018 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER KIM, SHIN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2018 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SONERILGIN, SERDAL KORKUT AVCI, ALPER BATUR, and UMIT GULBAY Appeal 2017-006566 Application 14/391,0041 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest in this patent application is Arcelik Anonim Sirketi.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017-006566 Application 14/391,004 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A household appliance (1) comprising a body, a logo (3) comprising at least one logo segment (2), and a background (4) which is a visible surface of the body whereon the logo (3) is situated, characterized in that one or more than one platform (5) in the same form as the logo segments (2), that is situated on the background (4) and whereon the logo segments (2) are at least partially coated, and one or more than one groove (6) that is situated between the background ( 4) and the platform (5). Appeal Br., Claims App. Rejections Claims 1-5 and 8-11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oriel (US 2010/0275481 Al, pub. Nov. 4, 2010) and Riopel et al. (US 7,412,790 B2, iss. Aug. 19, 2008) (“Riopel”). Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oriel, Riopel, and Meiry et al. (US 2008/0163759 Al, pub. July 10, 2008) (“Meiry”). Claim 7 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oriel, Riopel, and Erickson et al. (US 6,477,799 Bl, iss. Nov. 12, 2002) (“Erickson”). Claims 12 and 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oriel, Riopel, and Shelton (US 5,536,558, iss. July 16, 1996). 2 Appeal 2017-006566 Application 14/391,004 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s combination of teachings of Oriel and Riopel fail to teach the claimed “background . . . which is a visible surface of the body” of the house appliance. Appeal Br. 7. We agree. The Examiner’s rejection relies on Oriel to teach a house appliance including a body, but does not rely on Oriel to teach the claimed background, and on Riopel’s bottom edge 30d to correspond to the claimed background. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Riopel, Fig. 3). However, the Examiner does not find — or explain how — Riopel’s bottom edge 30d is a visible surface of the body of a house appliance. The Appellants argue, and we agree, that the Examiner’s rejection includes a modification of Oriel’s household appliance by affixing a sign “in its entirety on Oriel’s machine, in which case the combination fails to teach the background being a visible surface of the body of the household appliance,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. To the extent the Examiner may have intended to rely on the body of Oriel’s household appliance to teach a “background,” as required by claim 1, it is not apparent from the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. We also agree with the Appellants that “the Examiner failed to address th[is] argument in the Examiner’s Answer.” Reply Br. 3. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11, as unpatentable over Oriel and Riopel. The remaining rejections based on Oriel and Riopel in combination with Meiry, Erickson, or Shelton rely on the same combination of teachings discussed above, which fails to teach the claimed subject matter. 3 Appeal 2017-006566 Application 14/391,004 Additionally, the remaining rejections do not include additional findings and/or reasoning of to cure the deficiency of the rejection of independent claim 1. As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claim 6 as unpatentable over Oriel, Riopel, and Meiry; claim 7 as unpatentable over Oriel, Riopel, and Erickson; and claims 12 and 13 as unpatentable over Oriel, Riopel, and Shelton. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13. REVERSED 4