Ex Parte Aranda Vazquez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

13581652 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
13/581,652 09/05/2012 Sandra Aranda Vazquez 2010P00137WOUS 8800
46726 7590 08/11/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
CHEN, KUANGYUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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 SANDRA ARANDA VAZQUEZ, IGNACIO GARDE ARANDA,
OSCAR GRACIA CAMPOS, SERGIO LLORENTE GIL,
OSCAR LUCIA GIL, CARLOS VICENTE MAIRAL SERRANO,
IGNACIO MILLAN SERRANO, and PAUL MURESAN
Appeal 2016-005873
Application 13/5 81,6521
Technology Center 3700
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 31, 32, and 35—37. Claims 1—15, 20,
33, and 34 have been cancelled, and claims 16—19 and 21—30 have been
withdrawn. See App. Br. 10-15 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BSH Hausgerate
GmbH. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005873
Application 13/581,652
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “a cooktop having at least
one cooking zone and to an apparatus for detecting a food preparation vessel
on the cooking zone.” Spec. 11. Id. Claim 31, which is illustrative, reads
as follows:
31. A cooktop, comprising:
a cooking zone having at least two cooking sub-zones, the
cooking sub-zones being positioned such that each of the
cooking sub-zones is directly adjoining at least one other of the
cooking sub-zones;
heating units for heating the cooking sub-zones,
respectively, the heating units disposed adjacent to one another
without overlapping such that a cohesive heatable surface is
formed during joint operation of the cooking sub-zones;
a control unit configured to operate the cooking sub-zones
as a single cooking zone in a first operating mode, and configured
to operate at least two of the cooking sub-zones as separately
controllable cooking areas in a second operating mode such that
an electrical power of the at least two of the cooking sub-zones
is different when the at least two of the cooking sub-zones are
energized; and
an apparatus for detecting an occupancy of the cooking
sub-zones by at least one food preparation vessel and allowing
execution in the first operating mode of a detection of the
occupancy of one of the cooking sub-zones, with the heating
units of cooking sub-zones which are occupied by a food
preparation vessel, being supplied only with a same electrical
power in the first operating mode,
wherein in the first operating mode the cooking sub-zones
not occupied by a food preparation vessel are deactivated and
remain deactivated, even in the presence of a food preparation
vessel placed on the deactivated cooking sub-zones after
expiration of an initial occupancy detection phase, until
2
Appeal 2016-005873
Application 13/581,652
reactivation of a subsequent occupancy detection phase that is
initiated by a user, and
the subsequent occupancy detection phase can only be
initiated by the user.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
Gouardo et al. US 2007/0164017 A1 July 19, 2007
Kaizik DE 10 2006 054 973 Al May 29, 2008
Rejection2
Claims 31, 32, and 35—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kaizik and Gouardo. Final
Act. 4—8.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kaizik and
Gourdo teaches or suggests
wherein in the first operating mode the cooking sub-zones
not occupied by a food preparation vessel are deactivated and
remain deactivated, even in the presence of a food preparation
vessel placed on the deactivated cooking sub-zones after
expiration of an initial occupancy detection phase, until
reactivation of a subsequent occupancy detection phase that is
initiated by a user, and
2 The rejection of claims 31, 32, and 35—37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2016-005873
Application 13/581,652
the subsequent occupancy detection phase can only be
initiated by the user,
as recited in claim 31?
ANALYSIS
Claim 31
The Examiner finds Kaizik teaches or suggests all of the limitations
recited in claim 31 except
wherein in the first operating mode the cooking sub-zones
not occupied by a food preparation vessel are deactivated and
remain deactivated, even in the presence of a food preparation
vessel placed on the deactivated cooking sub-zones after
expiration of an initial occupancy detection phase, until
reactivation of a subsequent occupancy detection phase that is
initiated by a user, and
the subsequent occupancy detection phase can only be
initiated by the user,
for which the Examiner relies upon the teachings and suggestions of
Gouardo. Final Act. 4—6. In particular, the Examiner finds Gouardo teaches
cooking sub-zones not occupied by a food preparation vessel are deactivated
and remain deactivated. Ans. 4 (citing Gouardo, Figs. 3^4; 168). The
Examiner further finds Gouardo teaches cancelling cooking area Zi after a
particular time period has elapsed and, therefore, teaches or suggests that the
cooking sub-zones remain deactivated even in the presence of a food
preparation vessel placed on the deactivated cooking sub-zones after an
occupancy detection phase. Id.
Appellants contend Gouardo does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 3^4. In this regard, Appellants contend
Gouardo fails to teach or suggest that the deactivated cooking sub-zones
4
Appeal 2016-005873
Application 13/581,652
remain deactivated, even in the presence of a food preparation vessel placed
on the deactivated cooking sub-zones after expiration of an initial occupancy
detection phase, until reactivation of a subsequent occupancy detection
phase that is initiated by a user, as required by claim 31. Id. Appellants
argue Gouardo, instead, teaches “if the container is removed from the
cooking surface and then replaced on it, the control system is adapted to
detect the presence of the container and to calculate a shifted heating area
when there is no step of declaration of the addition of a new container by the
user.” App. Br. 7 (citing Gouardo 1189); see also Reply Br. 4.
We find Appellants’ contention persuasive. Gouardo teaches “[i]f no
container is placed on the cooking surface, the new area Zi is cancelled after
a particular time period, for example 1 minute.” Gouardo 1 68 (emphasis
added). The Examiner’s findings fail to explain how Gouardo’s teaching of
canceling the new cooking area Zi when a container is not placed on the
cooking surface teaches or suggests the deactivated cooking sub-zones
remain deactivated even in the presence of a food preparation vessel placed
on the deactivated cooking sub-zone, as required by claim 31. Further, we
agree with Appellants (App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 4) that Gouardo teaches
activating the deactivated cooking sub-zones if the container is removed
from the cooking surface and then subsequently replaced on the cooking
surface “when there has been no step E10 of declaration of the addition of a
new container by the user.” (Gouardo 188—189). As such, on the current
record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31, or claims 32
and 35—37, which depend therefrom.
5
Appeal 2016-005873
Application 13/581,652
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 32, and 35—37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6