Ex Parte Haverstock

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2014

12157761 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2014)

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. 12/157,761 06/12/2008 Thomas B. Haverstock TBH-00103 8898 28960 7590 07/25/2014 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP 162 N WOLFE ROAD SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 EXAMINER TRAN, THIEN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THOMAS B. HAVERSTOCK ____________ Appeal 2012-005006 Application 12/157,7611 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–32. Appeal Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to the Appeal Brief filed on August 5, 2011. The real party in interest is Thomas B. Haverstock. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 1–20 were canceled. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2012-005006 Application 12/157,761 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 21, 25, and 29 are independent. Claim 21 is illustrative and reads as follows: 21. A compressible infusion press for separating infusion material from an infused liquid in a cup shaped as a conical frustum, the cup having an opening with a first radius at a proximal end of the vessel and a closed distal end with a second radius wherein the first radius is larger than the second radius, the compressible infusion press comprising: a. a flexible compressible filter member of a size to at least span the opening and having pores sized to pass the infused liquid but not the infusion material; b. a substantially planar radially compressible filter support configured to maintain the filter member in contact with an interior surface of the vessel, the compressible filter support having a plurality of arms extending from an interior support wherein the arms bend inwardly in the plane to accommodate the second radius such that the compressible support remains substantially planar even while its radius reduces; and c. a plunger element coupled to the filter support and configured for pushing the filter support and the filter member through vessel from the proximal end substantially to the distal end. Rejections The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 21–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levinson (US 6,231,909 B1, issued May 15, 2001) and Porter (US 5,887,510, issued Mar. 30, 1999). Appeal 2012-005006 Application 12/157,761 3 II. Claims 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levinson, Porter, and Patterson (US 6,038,963, issued Mar. 21, 2000). III. Claims 29–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patterson, Levinson, and Porter. ANALYSIS Rejection I Regarding claim 21, the Examiner finds that Levinson discloses, inter alia, a substantially planar radially compressible filter support 6, but does not disclose that filter support 6 has “a plurality of arms extending from an interior support wherein the arms bend inwardly in the plane to accommodate the second radius such that the compressible support remains substantially planar even while its radius reduces,” as claimed. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Porter discloses a compressible filter support having a plurality of arms 50 extending from interior support 44, wherein “the arms [50] bend inwardly in the plane to accommodate the second radius such that the compressible support remains substantially planar even while its radius reduces.” Ans. 5 (citing Figs. 1, 3; col. 3, ll. 18–25, 38–41). The Examiner reproduces portions of Figures 1 and 3 of Porter, and states, “[t]he drawings . . . of Porter discloses the filter (Item 46, filter) support (Item 44, base) arms (Item 50) have to bend inwardly to pass through the interior of the cup.” Ans. 15. The Examiner interprets the recitation “the arms bend inwardly in the plane . . . while its radius reduces” as functional or intended use language. Ans. 15. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Levinson’s filter support with Porter’s filter support Appeal 2012-005006 Application 12/157,761 4 having a plurality of arms. Ans. 14–15. The Examiner finds that the combination of Levinson and Porter meets all of the claimed structural limitations, and also is capable of performing this functional language. Ans. 15–16. Appellant contends that Porter does not disclose a filter support as claimed. In particular, Appellant contends that “there are arms 52 [in Porter] which bend upwardly and out of the plane of the filter. Indeed, the bending arms 52 are substantially perpendicular to the plane of the filter.” Reply Br. 5. As shown in Figure 1, Porter discloses a plunger assembly 30 including a peripheral base member 44 from which fingers 50 extend upwardly. Col. 3, ll. 20–21. Fingers 50 include a living hinge at peripheral base member 44, a first phalange 52, and a second phalange 54, which joins first phalange 52 at angular intersection 56. Col. 3, ll. 21–29. First phalange 52 extends upwardly and outwardly from peripheral base member 44, and second phalange 54 extend upwardly and inwardly from angular intersection 56. Col. 3, ll. 23–25, 33–35. Porter discloses that “[e]ach of fingers 50 is spaced from each adjacent finger 50 such that when filter unit is moved downwardly, each finger moves inwardly radially such that slots 60 between fingers 50 approach closure.” Col. 3, ll. 38–41. Claim 1 calls for a “substantially planar” radially compressible filter support having arms extending from an interior support. We construe “the plane” recited in claim 1, which specifies where “the arms bend inwardly in,” as the plane of the filter support. This construction is consistent with the structure of pressing plates 900 and 1000 shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively, of Appellant’s application. See Spec. 18, l. 20–19, l. 13. Appeal 2012-005006 Application 12/157,761 5 Applying this construction of “the plane” to claim 1, we do not see how the combination of Levinson and Porter’s plunger assembly 30 including fingers 50 would result in a “substantially planar radially compressible filter support,” as claimed. Even if the “interior support” (i.e., peripheral base member 44) of Porter is considered to be substantially planar, fingers 50 extend upwardly away from the plane of the “interior support.” Although fingers 50 would bend inwardly “to accommodate the second radius” during downward movement of the plunger assembly 30 in a cup, the Examiner has not explained how fingers 50 would be capable of “bend[ing] inwardly in the plane to accommodate the second radius such that the compressible support remains substantially planar even while its radius reduces,” as recited in claim 21. Emphasis added. Rather, we find that the filter support in the Examiner’s combination would not have a “substantially planar” structure at any time when it is disposed in the cup. In view of the above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 21 and its dependent claims 22–24 over Levinson and Porter. Rejection II Independent claim 25 is directed to an infusion press comprising, inter alia, “a substantially planar radially compressible filter support” having a plurality of arms that “bend inwardly in the plane,” as recited in claim 21. The Examiner’s application of Patterson (Ans. 8) for the rejection of claim 25 does not cure the deficiencies of Levinson and Porter discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 25 and its dependent claims 26–28 over Levinson, Porter, and Patterson. Appeal 2012-005006 Application 12/157,761 6 Rejection III Independent claim 29 is directed to a system for pressing a coffee beverage comprising, inter alia, “a substantially planar radially compressible filter support” having a plurality of arms that “bend inwardly in the plane,” as recited in claims 21 and 25. The Examiner’s combination of Patterson, Levinson, and Porter (Ans. 9–11) does not support the rejection of claim 29 for the same reasons as for rejection II, which relies on the same combination of references as this rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 29 and its dependent claims 30–32. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21–32. REVERSED llw