Ex Parte Laible et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 2013

11919571 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KARL-FRIEDRICH LAIBLE and HELMUT STEICHELE ____________ Appeal 2012-000992 Application 11/919,571 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000992 Application 11/919,571 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-20, 22, and 23.1 App. Br. 3. Claims 1-9 and 21 are cancelled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Claimed Subject Matter Claims 10 and 19 are independent. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 10. A door for a household appliance, the door comprising: a.) a door body having an appliance-side plate; b.) an outer-side decorative panel, the outer-side decorative panel being spaced from the appliance-side plate by a gap such that, as viewed in a direction from a rear portion of the door toward a front portion of the door, the appliance-side plate is further toward the rear portion of the door than both the outer-side decorative panel and the gap with the gap intermediate the outer-side decorative panel and the appliance-side plate; and c.) a profiled cover, the profiled cover extending at least between a portion of a side of the appliance-side plate to a portion of a side of the outer-side decorative panel such that the profiled cover closes off a side edge extent of the gap delimited between the side portion of the appliance-side plate and the side portion of the outer-side decorative panel. 1 Claim 16 is provisionally rejected under nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting under two different grounds. Infra. Although the Answer appears to exclude claim 16 as a rejected claim (see Ans. 3), claim 16 is a rejected claim and included in this appeal. Appeal 2012-000992 Application 11/919,571 3 Rejections The Appellants do not request our review of the following Examiner’s rejections: claims 10-20, 22, and 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-35 of copending Application No. 12/085,652; claims 10-20, 22, and 23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of copending Application No. 11/919,720 in view of copending Application 12/085,652; and claims 13 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park (US 2004/0222725, pub. Nov. 11, 2004) and Wesolowska (US 2004/0168384 A1, pub. Sep. 2, 2004).2 Accordingly, these grounds of rejection are summarily sustained. The Appellants request our review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-12, 14, 15, 17-20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Park. OPINION The Examiner finds Park’s cover bracket 113 “has a certain thickness and since it is located between an outer-side decorative panel [(cover part) 110] and an appliance-side plate [(door) 105], there is an inherent gap between the outer-side decorative panel and the appliance-side panel.” Ans. 10; see Park, figs. 3-4, para. [0059]. The Appellants contend that Park fails to teach limitation “b” of claim 10. See App. Br. 5. Specifically, the Appellants contend that it is not 2 We have removed claim 21 from the provisional double patenting rejections (see Ans. 5, 6) because claim 21 is a cancelled claim. Appeal 2012-000992 Application 11/919,571 4 inherent that Park discloses the “gap” between the appliance-side plate and the decorative panel as called for in claim 10. See App. Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 2- 3. The Appellants assert that [s]crewing first cover bracket 113 to the cover part 110 teaches that first cover bracket is firmly affixed-- even flush with--cover part 110 and as such, would not suggest a gap as would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the present specification. Reply Br. 3. The Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. At the outset, we note that Park’s Figure 4 does not depict cover bracket 113 flush with cover part 110. The only way cover bracket 113 would be flush with cover part 110 is if cover part 110 included a recess having a thickness equal to the thickness of cover bracket 113. Park does not disclose a recess in cover part 110 for cover bracket 113. Additionally, contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, cover bracket 113 being affixed to cover part 110 supports the Examiner’s finding that an inherent gap exists between cover part 110 and door 105 because the cover bracket 113, which has a thickness, is situated between cover part 110 and door 105. As such, the gap between cover part 110 and door 105 is at least as wide as the thickness of cover bracket 113. Park, figs. 3-4, para. [0059]; see also Park, para. [0056]. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Park is sustained. The Appellants rely on the arguments presented against the rejection of claim 10 for the rejection of the remaining claims under this ground of rejection. See App. Br. 7. As such, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Park is also sustained. Appeal 2012-000992 Application 11/919,571 5 DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 10-20, 22, and 23. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls