Ex Parte Rivera

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

12762262 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
12/762,262 04/16/2010 Adrian Rivera 140/022 3055
27612 7590 08/29/2017
AVFRTT T Rr flRFFN
EXAMINER
14831 E. Whittier Blvd. DUNIVER, DIALLO IGWE
Suite 206
WHITTIER, CA 90605 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 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):
kgreen @ averillandgreen.com
rgarcia@ averillandgreen.com
agreen@ averillandgreen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIAN RIVERA
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 We are informed that the real party in interest is the Appellant, Adrian
Rivera. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Sept. 26, 2014).
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a coffee maker with multi and single cup
modes. Claims 1,17, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. (Original) A multi-mode coffee maker comprising:
a body;
a cavity in the body for receiving dry coffee;
a water container attached to the body for providing water
to make brewed coffee;
a heater for heating the water to make the brewed coffee;
at least one control to select between a volume of the
brewed coffee to fill a single cup brewed coffee container and to
fill a multi-cup brewed coffee container;
a mouth on the front of the body for receiving the brewed
coffee container;
a platform at the bottom of the mouth for supporting the
multi-cup brewed coffee container; and
a normally closed spout/drip valve above the platform
having an open position for releasing the volume of brewed
coffee into a brewed coffee container comprising the multi-cup
brewed coffee container and the single cup brewed coffee
container and a closed position for restricting the release of the
volume of brewed coffee, the spout/drip valve opened by placing
the multi-cup brewed coffee container in the coffee maker and
openable for use of the single cup brewed coffee container.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Glucksman
Ohm
Estaun
Remsnyder
US 2006/0254428 A1
US Des. 431,423
US 5,887,508
US 4,164,644
Nov. 16, 2006
Oct. 3, 2000
Mar. 30, 1999
Aug. 14, 1979
2
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—4 and 14—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Glucksman and Estaun. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
II. Claim 5—6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glucksman, Estaun, and Remsnyder. Final Act. 6; Ans. 2.
III. Claims 7—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glucksman, Estaun, Remsnyder, and Ohm. Final Act. 9;
Ans. 2.
IV. Claims 10—13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glucksman, Estaun, and Ohm. Final Act. 11; Ans. 2.
V. Claims 14—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glucksman, Estaun, Remsnyder, and Ohm. Ans. 3.
VI. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glucksman, Estaun, Remsnyder, and Ohm. Final Act. 63;
Ans. 3.
OPINION
Rejection I
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Glucksman discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 “except for a multi-cup brewed coffee container and a normally
closed spout/drip valve opening to allow flow of beverage and closing to
restrict flow of beverage.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that
Estaun discloses a hot beverage machine “with a first pouring device having
an outlet orifice, and a second pouring device having at least two outlet
orifices.” Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
Appellant argues “[njeither Glucksman nor Estaun disclose [sic] a
coffee maker having a normally closed spout/drip valve . . . opened by
placing the multi-cup brewed coffee container in the coffee maker.” Appeal
Br. 12. Appellant further argues that claim 1 requires “a single port for both
a single multi-cup pot and a coffee cup and that placing the multi-cup pot in
the coffee maker opens the port to release coffee.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Estaun shows and describes a drip valve control element 17 that is opened
and closed by the presence/withdrawal of a coffee pot. Estaun 5:46-49.
Furthermore, to the extent that a single port is required by claim 1, Estaun
shows a single port 18 (Figs. 1 and 2) through which all brewed beverage
flows and which is opened to release beverage to the multi-cup container
and to the single cup container, and which is closed by valve member 17 to
restrict release of beverage, as required by claim 1.
Appellant also argues that “Estaun does not close a valve to prevent
dripping from the selected port.” Appeal Br. 13. This argument is not
directed to any limitation found in claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s argument
is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, and for that reason, does not
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, adding that the at least one control is
operable by placement of a single cup adapter in the coffee maker to select
the volume of brewed coffee to properly fill the single cup. The Examiner
finds all of the limitations of claim 2 in Glucksman and Estaun. Final Act.
4
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
4—5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Glucksman in view of Estaun “because Estaun permits the function of a
machine equipped with drip-prevention components where the beverage is
collected in a carafe to be combined with that of a machine constructed to
directly deliver the beverage into one or several receptacles.” Id. at 5.
Appellant makes two arguments. Appeal Br. 14—15. First, Appellant argues
that Estaun does not close a valve to prevent dripping from the selected port.
Id. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Estaun shows a
drip valve operable when the machine is filling a multi-cup pot, and this
meets the limitations of claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues that the cited art does not disclose a single
cup adapter that opens and closes the port, and in the cited art, the port is
open when no single cup adapter is present. Appeal Br. 15. This latter
statement regarding the port being open or “free to provide a flow of coffee
when no single cup adapter is present” (Appeal Br. 15) is not directed to any
limitation in claim 2 and, therefore, is unpersuasive.
We further disagree with Appellant’s reading of Estaun. Figures 1
and 2 show a single cup adapter in inactive and active positions,
respectively, by operation of “[actuating means.” Estaun 4:36 to 5:10. In
the inactive position (Fig. 1), the cup adapter/”second pouring means” does
not dispense coffee; in the active position (Fig. 2), the cup adapter/”second
pouring means” opens the drip valve. Consequently, these structures and
functions meet the claim requirements of “a single cup adapter” that
“properly fill[s] the single cup brewed coffee container.” See also Estaun
5:62—64 (“the user can also dispose a single receptacle in a manner to collect
the beverage flowing out of the two orifices 24”) (emphasis omitted).
5
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's findings leading to the
rejection of claim 2 are in error.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16
The Appellant argues each of claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 is patentable for
the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 16, 17, 18, and 19, respectively.
Because we find no error in the rejection of claim 1, we similarly find no
error in the rejection of claims 3, 4, 15, and 16.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 adding “two interchangeable dry
coffee holders, one dry coffee holder configured to hold sufficient dry coffee
to make several cups of coffee and a second dry coffee holder configured to
hold sufficient dry coffee to make a single cup of coffee.” Appeal Br. 60
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Glucksman discloses two dry
coffee holders 33 and 40, citing paragraphs 51—54 and Figures 1—9. The
Appellant points out that element 33 of Glucksman is a brewing station and
element 40 is a fill station. Glucksman || 52—53. In Glucksman the
“infusion chamber 32 at a brewing station 33 that includes a grounds cup
holder 34 with an integral handle 35” (emphasis omitted) functionally
corresponds to the claimed dry coffee holder, but there is only one such
disclosed in Glucksman. Glucksman | 51.
In the Answer, the Examiner for the first time asserts that the shelves
63 and 67 in Glucksman are the two interchangeable dry coffee holders.
Ans. 31. The Examiner finds that “the brewing shelf 63 is capable of
holding at least two cups of coffee.” Id. We find the Examiner has
misinterpreted Glucksman. Glucksman states that “shelf 63 acts as a support
for the infusion chamber assembly 32, particularly the grounds cup holder
6
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
34.” Glucksman | 61 (emphasis omitted). Although the shelf 63 might
conceivably be used as a repository for coffee grounds, no reasonable person
would interpret these structures as dry coffee holders. The shelf 67 is
similar to the shelf 63 and supports the infusion chamber assembly 32 for
certain operations. Glucksman | 62. We find Glucksman discloses a single
infusion chamber assembly 32 which can be placed on one of two distinct
shelves. Glucksman || 61—62. Glucksman does not disclose two
interchangeable dry coffee holders, and accordingly we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 14.
Rejections II and III
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 adding that the coffee maker includes
“a hot plate on a top surface of the platform and a switch for turning the hot
plate on and off.” Appeal Br. 59 (Claims App.). Claim 1 defines the
platform as being located at “the bottom of the mouth” and the mouth is
recited as being located on the front of the device and is for receiving a
multi-cup container of coffee. Appeal Br. 58 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that
“a hot plate on a top surface of the platform” does not mean in
direct contact with the surface of the platform (i.e. indirectly
contacting the top surface of the platform by the internals of the
coffee maker). However any hotplate or warming plate with a
switch located on top of the platform reads on recitation of claim.
Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that Glucksman discloses a cup warmer that is
located on the top of the coffee maker and not on a top surface of a platform
which platform resides at the bottom of the mouth for supporting a multi-cup
brewed coffee container. Appeal Br. 22—23; Reply 6—7. Appellant further
7
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
cites dictionary definitions of “on” as meaning “touching and being
supported by the top surface of (something).” Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant that “on” in this context does not embrace the far-
reaching indirect support required by the Examiner’s claim construction.
Because Glucksman does not disclose a cup warmer which is located on a
top surface of a platform which in turn is at the bottom of the mouth of a
coffee machine, on this record we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 5.
Claims 6—9
Claims 6—9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 5. Claim 6
depends from claim 5, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 for the
same reasons as claim 5. Claims 7—9 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 5. The additional reference cited against these claims does not cure
the deficiency of Glucksman, and so we likewise do not sustain the rejection
of claims 7—9.
Rejection IV
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 adding “a single cup adapter
including a drip tray for catching drips of brewed coffee.” Appeal Br. 59
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Ohm teaches a cup holder that is
collapsible and includes both an area to hold a container “and [the] area
surrounding the container holder capable of catching drips and spills of [the]
liquid.” Ans. 23. Appellant argues that the area around the cup holder of
Ohm does not constitute a drip tray because it is not sealed and would leak.
Appeal Br. 35; Reply 9. We agree with the Examiner. The tray of Ohm is
capable of catching drips even if not necessarily retaining them. We will not
8
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
import limitations from the specification into the claims, and we therefore
decline to require Ohm’s drip tray to be sealed and leak-free. See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is similar to claim 10 except that the single cup adapter is
“retractable”. Appeal Br. 60 (Claims App.). The Appellant makes the same
arguments made in connection with claim 10. Appeal Br. 36. For the same
reasons expressed in connection with claim 10, we find no error in the
rejection of claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 adding “a single cup adapter
including an upward reaching arm which cooperates with [the] valve lever
operating a spout/drip valve to open the normally closed spout/drip valve
when the single cup adapter is inserted into the coffee maker.” Appeal Br.
60 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Ohm’s single cup holder has a “base
including a drip tray of cup holder [which] rotates (i.e. retracting) in a
vertical direction) Figures 5-6). Ohms [sic] also teach [sic] of an upward
reaching arm connected to the single cup holder.” Final Act. 13. The
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious “to use the collapsible cup
holder of Ohm on top of the base of Glucksman in view of Estaun because
Ohm ensures a good connection with exterior devices.” Final Act. 13.
9
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
Our reviewing court has set forth the standard for determining the
sufficiency of an Examiner's rejection:
[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
“notifying] the applicant . . . [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.”
That section “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that
it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter
the grounds for rejection.”
In re Jung, 636 F.2d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted)
(alterations in original). Here, the Final Office Action makes no mention of
an arm that cooperates with a valve lever, and the Examiner’s finding “to
ensure a good connection with exterior devices” fails to suggest such
cooperation. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness and, on this record, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 adding “a single cup adapter
including a downward protrusion on a bottom of a base portion of the single
cup adapter, the downward protrusion engaging a recess in the platform for
positioning the single cup adapter in the coffee maker.” Appeal Br. 60
(Claims App.). The Examiner notes that the recess in the platform for
positioning the single cup adapter is not “positively recited,” and therefore is
not given weight. Ans. 29. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the
platform may have any structure that is “capable of supporting coffee
containers.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Ohm discloses an adapter
10
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
with a downward protrusion capable of engaging the platform of
Glucksman.
We find that Ohm does not show downward protrusions as claimed.
In Ohm, the downward protrusions are evident only when the cup holder is
closed. When the cup holder is in the open position — as it would
necessarily be to be used as a single cup adapter — there would be no
protrusion engaging a recess in the adapter supporting platform.
Because the Examiner misconstrued Ohm, his conclusions based on
Ohm are not supported by rational underpinnings. The other references
cited by the Examiner do not cure this deficiency, and accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Rejection V
Claims 14—16 are the subject of this rejection, but we can find no
explanation of the rejection on the grounds identified as Rejection V in the
Examiner's Answer, page 2. Nor do we find any similar explanation in the
Final Office Action. See Final Act. 14—15. We, therefore, treat this ground
of rejection as withdrawn and address claims 14—16 as part of Rejection I.
We note that the Appellant’s arguments in connection with claim 14 are
directed solely to the Glucksman reference, and not to the Remsnyder and
Ohm references. Ohm and Remsnyder were added to Rejection I as the
basis of Rejection V. It appears, therefore, that Appellant’s arguments
would have been the same whether claim 14 is considered rejected under
Rejection I or Rejection V.
Rejection VI
Claim 17 is an independent claim in many respects similar to claim 1.
Claim 17 includes a limitation that the coffee maker includes “a hot plate on
11
Appeal 2015-005207
Application 12/762,262
a top surface of the platform.” Appeal Br. 61 (Claim App.). This is the
same limitation as recited in claim 5 and which we found not to be disclosed
in any of the references. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 for the
same reason we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is an independent claim in many respects similar to claim 1,
and it includes the hotplate-on-platform limitation identical to that in claim
5. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 for the same reason we did
not sustain the rejection of claim 5.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1—4, 10, 11, 15, and 16 are
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 5—9, 12—14, 17, and 18 are
reversed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12