Ex Parte TAN

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 20, 2019

15023536 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/023,536 03/21/2016 JINGWEITAN 24737 7590 03/22/2019 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2014P00303WOUS01 5042 EXAMINER LEFF, STEVEN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2019 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JING WEI TAN Appeal2019-001097 Application 15/023,536 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, LILAN REN, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Song (US 2008/0089986 Al, published Apr. 17, 2008); and also rejected claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is also stated to be the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2019-001097 Application 15/023,536 anticipated by Eichner (US 2004/0142078 Al, published July 22, 2004). 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Independent claim 9 is illustrative ( emphasis added to highlight key disputed limitations): 9. An apparatus for identifying an initial roasting degree of coffee beans, the apparatus comprising: a measuring unit configured to measure information indicating temperature change of the coffee beans while the coffee beans are roasted; and an identifying unit configured to identify the initial roasting degree of the coffee beans at least partially based on the measured information. Appellant only presents arguments directed to independent claim 9 for each rejection (Appeal Br.; Reply Br. generally). Accordingly, all of the remaining claims stand or fall together with claim 9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1 2 We do not view Appellant's listing of claim limitations in various dependent claims and mere assertion that Song ( or Eichner) does not describe such as substantive argument (e.g., Appeal Br. 10-12, 14, 15). In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. Because Lovin did not provide such arguments, the Board did not err in refusing to separately address claims 2-15, 17-24, and 31-34.") 2 Appeal2019-001097 Application 15/023,536 is anticipated within the meaning ofÂ§ 102 in view of the applied prior art of either one of Song or Eichner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the Examiner's Response to Argument section, and add the following primarily for emphasis. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (BP AI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). "[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." Id. The only dispute for claim 9 is whether the claim language "the initial roasting degree of the coffee beans" of the identifying unit encompasses the coffee roasting control described in Song ( or in Eichner). There is no dispute that Song describes a coffee roasting control scheme; rather, Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding in Song that there is an identifying unit that identifies the "initial roasting degree of the coffee beans" (e.g., Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 14). Appellant argues that neither the memory retrieval by a control unit or manual selection by the 3 Appeal2019-001097 Application 15/023,536 user of roasting temperatures T 1, T2, and T3 meets the claim language because the initial roasting is already "known during the pre-heating cycle prior to the roasting cycle" (Reply Br. 14). Appellant also contends that the conditions (1) to (3) listed at Appeal Br. 12, 13 are excluded by the claim language. These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner explains that the language "identifying unit configured to identify the initial roasting degree of the coffee beans" as recited in claim 9 reasonably encompasses Song's control unit that identifies the first crack of a coffee bean at temperature Tl, second crack at T2, etc. (Ans. 6). As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant's Specification contains no limiting or special definition of an "initial roasting degree" and the control apparatus of Song thus reasonably encompasses the claim language (Ans. 6, 7). Accordingly, Appellant does not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence that the Examiner's finding of anticipation based on Song is unreasonable. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's rejection based on Song. Likewise, with respect to the rejection based on Eichner, Appellant's arguments that the claim language regarding an initial roasting degree does not encompass Eichner's user pre-selected temperature-time profile (e.g., Appeal Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 19-23) are unpersuasive. Appellant fails to appreciate the breadth of the language "identify the initial roasting degree of the coffee beans" as recited in claim 9. We agree with the Examiner that, since the Specification is devoid of any limiting definition, the claims reasonably encompass Eichner's roasting control scheme (Ans. 7; e.g., Eichner ,r,r 68, 70, 90, 97). Notably, Eichner even explicitly teaches taking 4 Appeal2019-001097 Application 15/023,536 corrective action prior to the end of a roasting duration interval, e.g., if the coffee bean temperature is trending higher, reduce the temperature so as to result in an optimal roast per interval of time (Eichner ,r 97; Ans. 7). Accordingly, we affirm both of the Examiner's anticipation rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136. DECISION AFFIRMED 5