WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2022

2021003595 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2022)

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. 16/306,640 12/03/2018 Jeffrey P. Beckner SUB-08252-US-PCT 9042 130333 7590 01/21/2022 PRICE HENEVELD LLP WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 EXAMINER WRIGHT, KIMBERLEY S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/21/2022 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): PatentDocketing@whirlpool.com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com ptomail@priceheneveld.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEFFREY P. BECKNER, PAUL B. ALLARD, LYNNE F. HUNTER, GUSTAVO FRATTINI, and ABHAY NAIK Appeal 2021-003595 Application 16/306,640 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Whirlpool Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003595 Application 16/306,640 2 BACKGROUND The Specification describes a refrigerator cabinet and methods for forming a refrigerator cabinet with an inner liner, an external wrapper including a machine compartment, and a foot defined by the external wrapper. Spec. ¶ 2. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 1. A refrigerator cabinet comprising: an inner liner; an external wrapper, the inner liner positioned within the external wrapper such that a gap is defined between the external wrapper and the inner liner, wherein the external wrapper includes a machine compartment comprising: a top wall; an interior wall; a bottom wall; a first side wall; and a second side wall, wherein the top wall, the interior wall, the bottom wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall are integrally formed as a single unitary construction with the external wrapper to define the machine compartment; and a foot integrally formed by the external wrapper and positioned below the machine compartment, wherein the foot is at least partially defined by the bottom wall and at least partially supports the refrigerator cabinet. Appeal Br. App. of Claims. Appeal 2021-003595 Application 16/306,640 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cur2 in view of Park.3 DISCUSSION We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 because the Examiner has not shown that the art of record teaches or otherwise makes obvious a refrigerator cabinet with a machine compartment as claimed. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cur discloses a refrigerator cabinet including an inner liner 94 and an external wrapper 92 and that Cur’s external wrapper includes a machine compartment 122 with top, interior, bottom, and side walls integrally formed as a single unitary construction as claimed. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Cur Fig. 11; ¶¶ 34-36, 45). The Examiner acknowledges that Cur does not disclose a foot as claimed, for which the Examiner relies on Park. Id. at 3 (citing Park Figs. 1-4, 6). Claim 1 recites that the walls of the machine compartment are part of the external wrapper such that they are “integrally formed” with the external wrapper to form a “single unitary construction.” The rejection does not provide any explanation regarding how Cur meets these limitations. The Examiner identifies external cavity 122 as the machine compartment. Final Act. 2. However, we do not see any disclosure in the cited portions of Cur that would include a machine compartment structured as claimed. Cur discloses that “the outer surface 92 of the cabinet structure 74 can be configured to at least partially define one or more external cavities 122,” 2 Cur et al., US 2013/0257257 A1, pub. Oct. 3, 2013. 3 Park, KR 20010068977 A, pub. July 23, 2001. Appeal 2021-003595 Application 16/306,640 4 which “are configured to accommodate mechanical equipment for implementing the various functions of the refrigerator 10.” Cur ¶ 45. Thus, Cur discloses an area that accommodates mechanical equipment, but Cur does not depict or describe, in the portions cited by the Examiner in the rejection, any external cavity 122 having top, interior, bottom, and side walls formed as a single unitary construction. In the Answer, the Examiner further finds that Cur discloses “how the machine compartment may be defined.” Ans. 5-6 (citing Cur ¶ 73). The Examiner explains that Cur describes how cavity 122 could be configured to include top, bottom, and side walls. The Examiner now also relies on Park with respect to the claimed machine compartment walls, finding that “as demonstrated in Figures 1-6 of Park, it is clear to one of ordinary skill that Park’s disclosed machine compartment is formed from an external wrapper with a top, bottom, and first side and second side integrally formed as a single unitary construction.” Id. at 6. Cur discloses: As also shown in FIG. 11, the outer surface 92 of the cabinet structure 74 disposed in the refrigerator 10 can be configured to define one or more cavities 122 where the one or more cavities 122 can also be defined by the outer surface 92 of an adjacent cabinet structure 94 or by an inner surface 124 of a refrigerator 10 receptacle 126 that receives the one or more cabinet structures 74. Cur ¶ 73. Although one might conclude that the cavity in this description includes top, interior, bottom, and side walls, we do not see any disclosure that defines those walls as being “integrally formed as a single unitary construction,” as claimed. And regarding the depiction in Park, without any specific description, we disagree that Park shows a machine compartment with walls being “integrally formed as a single unitary construction” as Appeal 2021-003595 Application 16/306,640 5 claimed. Further, even if we were to agree that Park shows such a machine compartment, the rejection relies on, and indicates support for, only the combination of Cur’s machine compartment with Park’s integrally formed foot. The Examiner does not provide further reasoning why it would have been obvious to combine Park’s entire machine compartment into Cur’s device. Finally, the Examiner also determines that the claim term integral requires only parts that form a unit, and thus, the claimed foot “could be any element that is at least partially defined by the bottom wall, including the leg features.” Ans. 7. Such an interpretation with respect to the claimed “foot” is not applicable to the claimed walls of the machine compartment, which are required to not only be integral, but also must be formed as a single unitary construction. Thus, if we were to adopt the Examiner’s interpretation of integral, the Examiner has still failed to account for a machine compartment with walls that are “integrally formed as a single unitary construction” in either Cur or Park. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of dependent claims 2-8. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-8. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-8. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-8 103 Cur, Park 1-8 REVERSED