Ex Parte Distaso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

14225657 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
14/225,657 03/26/2014 TAMARA DISTASO PAT-US20050071 -US-CNT 9144
173 7590 03/14/2018
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
PELHAM, JOSEPH MOORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAMARA DISTASO and STEFANIA FRACCON
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,6571
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 7,199,340 B2; iss. Apr. 3, 2007) and Hofer
(WO 99/33347; pub. July 8, 1999).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Whirlpool Corporation, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellant filed Terminal Disclaimers on December 29, 2015, which were
approved by the Examiner on April 9, 2016, to address the double patenting
rejections.
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,657
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and claims 2—20 depend from
claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of cooking food using steam during a cooking
cycle with a cooking time in an automated household oven with
a cooking cavity, a heating system for heating the cooking cavity,
and a steam system for introducing steam into the cooking cavity,
the method comprising:
a preheating step where the cooking cavity is heated
toward a cooking temperature, which is greater than the boiling
point of water and comprising:
a dry preheating step where heat is supplied to the
cooking cavity from the heating system to raise an air
temperature in the cooking cavity to a first temperature, which is
greater than or equal to the boiling point of water, without the
introduction of steam into the cooking cavity; and
a steam preheating step where heat is supplied to the
cooking cavity to increase the air temperature in the cooking
cavity from the first temperature to the cooking temperature,
which is greater than the first temperature, with the introduction
of steam into the cooking cavity; and
a cooking step where the cooking cavity is maintained at
the cooking temperature.
OPINION
As seen above, claim 1 requires “a steam preheating step” that
“increase[s] the air temperature in the cooking cavity from [a] first
temperature [greater than or equal to the boiling point of water] to [a]
cooking temperature . . . greater than the first temperature.”
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner refers to Figure 11 of
Yamazaki as teaching “a dry preheating step up to the boiling temperature of
water, followed by a steam introduction step, and a cooking step
commencing at a cooking temperature of at least the boiling temperature of
2
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,657
water, by placing a food item (on pan 21) in the oven.” Final Act. 3 (citing
Yamazaki, 4:17—33, 14:9-24, Fig. 11); see also Ans. 5. In the Final Action,
the Examiner further explains that “[t]he claims differ substantively from
[Yamazaki] only in calling for steam cooking at a temperature greater than
that reached during the dry preheating step,” and cites Hofer as teaching that
feature. Final Act. 3. Specifically, without citing to any particular portion
of Hofer, the Examiner notes that Hofer teaches “dry preheating to 100 deg
C, continued preheating, while introducing steam, to a steam cooking
temperature greater than that reached during the dry preheating step, and
cooking with steam at this greater temperature, 140 deg. C (284 deg F),” and
reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious to utilize the cooking
temperatures of [Hofer] since these are disclosed to be appropriate for baked
goods.” Id. The Final Action makes clear that “[t]he Examiner relied on
[Hofer] only for its teaching of cooking temperatures above the boiling point
of water.” Id. at 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner changes the characterization of the
differences between the claimed arrangement and that taught by Yamazaki,
noting that “[t]he claims differ substantively from [Yamazaki] only in
calling for continued preheating with steam to a cooking temperature greater
than that reached during the dry preheating step,” and cites Hofer as teaching
“preheating with steam, to steam cooking temperatures up to 160° C.” Ans.
5 (citing App. Br. 24—25 (Evidence Appendix including the translation of
lines 1—37 on page 14 of Hofer)). When addressing the steam preheating
step later in the Answer, however, the Examiner again refers to Yamazaki,
and simply cites Hofer as evidence “that a steam cooking temperature higher
than the boiling point of water is conventional.” Id. at 9.
3
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,657
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings. Appellant contends, for
example, that “claim 1 . . . expressly calls for the air temperature to be
increased from the first temperature to the cooking temperature” during the
steam preheating step and “Yamasaki actually expressly teaches no steam
during any preheating phase.” App. Br. 9, 11; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellant further contends that Hofer does not teach the steam pre-heating
asserted by the Examiner in the Answer. Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by
Appellant’s contentions.
To the extent the Examiner now relies on Hofer as teaching the steam
preheating step, the Examiner offers no explanation as to how the cited
portion of Hofer provides the alleged teaching. Appellant responds that
Hofer does not provide the teaching asserted by the Examiner. See, e.g.,
Reply Br. 3 (“Nowhere does [Hofer] suggest using steam to heat the baking
compartment to any temperature over 90°C.”). After review of Hofer and,
in particular, the 37 lines of Hofer cited by the Examiner in connection with
the asserted teaching, we are not apprised of any teaching of the steam
preheating step recited in the claim.
With respect to Yamazaki, we also are apprised of nothing that
teaches “increasing] the air temperature in the cooking cavity from [a] first
temperature [greater than or equal to the boiling point of water] to [a]
cooking temperature . . . greater than the first temperature,” as required by
claim 1. Appellant includes an annoted version of Yamazaki’s Figure 11,
4
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,657
which is reproduced below for reference.
The Figure shown above is an annotated version of Yamazaki’s Figure 11
found on page 13 of the Appeal Brief and includes Appellant’s annotations
indicating what Appellant considers the end of Yamazaki’s preheating step
and the subsequent temperature rise from the oven door being closed.
The portion of Yamazaki cited by the Examiner in the Final Action
describes the heating shown in Figure 11, which includes the line labeled
“preheating.” Yamazaki, 14:9—24. With respect to that arrangement,
Yamazaki explains that, initially, “power is supplied to the upper heater . . .
thereby carrying out preheating.” Id. at 14:12—13. “After the preheating is
completed ... the power is supplied to . . . the evaporation pan heater” and
“the steam is supplied into the heating chamber.” Id. at 14:13—17.
Yamazaki further explains that “the inner temperature is once dropped when
the openable door is opened to mount the thing to be heated on the pan after
5
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,657
the preheating, and the inner temperature is suddenly raised when the
openable door is closed” and “a steady state is quickly brought in the
vicinity of 100° C to be a steam supply temperature.” Id. at 14:18—24.
It is unclear, based on the disclosure of Yamazaki, at which time
steam heating begins on the “preheating” line. Yamazaki explains, for
example, that “[ajfter the preheating is completed . . . steam is supplied into
the heating chamber.” Id. at 14:13—17. Based on the graph in Figure 11
(comparing the bar graphs to the “preheating” line), however, the time at
which preheating is completed (noted by Appellants’ line labeled “end of
preheating step”) occurs before power supply to the upper heater ends and
power supply to the evaporation pan heater begins. According to that
graphical illustration, steam appears to be introduced on or after the time at
which the temperature has risen due to closing the door (noted by
Appellant’s line labeled “temperature rise attributable to door being closed”)
because the beginning of the bar graph for “power supply to evaporation pan
heater” aligns with that point in time.
Regardless of which of the points on the graph in Figure 11 discussed
above corresponds to the introduction of steam into the oven, none meets the
claim requirement of the steam preheating step increasing the temperature
from a temperature greater than or equal to the boiling point of water. For
example, if steam is introduced at the end of preheating and before the door
is opened, or after the door is closed and the temperature rise has completed,
there is no increase in temperature after such a time. If steam is introduced
after the door is opened and the subsequent temperature drop, although there
is a subsequent increase in temperature, that increase begins at a temperature
less than the boiling point of water.
6
Appeal 2016-002741
Application 14/225,657
As for the additional discussion of Yamazaki’s asserted teachings in
the Answer, “that, during a preheating step, steam should not be introduced
into a cooking chamber until the chamber temperature has reached at least
the boiling point of water” (Ans. 9 (citing Yamazaki, 14:30-40)), we note
that the cited portion of Yamazaki describes scenerios where preheating is
not used. See Yamazaki, 14:30-40 (“On the other hand, in the case in which
the power is supplied to the evaporation pan heater without carrying out the
preheating, the inner temperature is raised slowly, causing an increase in a
time required for the cooking” and requiring “a great deal of time and labor
is required for removing the condensed water from the bottom face or side
surface of the heating chamber.”). That portion of Yamazaki does not cure
the deficienies noted above.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the Examiner has failed to
establish that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Yamazaki and
Hofer. Claims 2—20 depend from claim 1, and the rejections of those claims
do not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
7