Ex Parte Trow

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

11588661 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/588,661 10/27/2006 Liam Geoffrey Trow 006943.01762 3609
66811 7590 04/30/2013
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
and ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NO. 006943
10 SOUTH WACKER DR.
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BECKER, DREW E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2013 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 LIAM GEOFFREY TROW
____________

Appeal 2011-012913
Application 11/ 588,661
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final rejection of
claims 7 and 9-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 7 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
7. A method of preparing cooked oatmeal comprising:
providing oatmeal flakes in a sealed container having a
lid in a vending machine;
selecting the sealed container containing the oatmeal
flakes from the vending
machine;
Appeal 2011-012913
Application 11/ 588,661

2
removing the lid from the sealed container and placing
the container in a preparation compartment in the vending
machine;
adding milk from a liquid dispensing subunit in the
vending machine to the oatmeal flakes in the container to form
a milk and oatmeal flakes mixture; and
injecting the mixture in the container with a steam from a
steam subunit in the vending machine to prepare the mixture
ready for consumption.

Appellant (App. Br. 8) requests review of the following obviousness
rejection from the Examiner’s Final Office action:
Claims 7 and 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harashima (US 4,030,632) in view of Foster (US
Published Application 2007/0248741), Cai (US 6,582,743), and Finnerty
(US 4,978,543).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Harashima in view of Foster, Cai, and Finnerty, and further in view of Cai
(US 5,638,740).

OPINION1
After consideration of the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
response we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 and 9-11 for
the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.

1 Appellant in the principal Brief did not provide substantive arguments
addressing each of the appealed claims. In addressing separately rejected
claim 11, Appellant argues that Cai ‘740 does not remedy the defects of
Harashima, Foster, Cai ‘743, and Finnerty (the references cited in the
rejection of independent claim 7). Consequently, we will limit our
discussion to independent claim 7.
Appeal 2011-012913
Application 11/ 588,661

3
Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the
use of steam to cook oatmeal. (App. Br. 10). Specifically Appellant, App.
Br. 12, argue the Examiner:
selects a general teaching of vending machines [Harashima] and
impermissibly picks and chooses from among three other documents to
arrive at the instant claims. None of Foster, Cai, or Finnerty teach or suggest
a process which utilizes a vending machine to not only dispense a product,
but to add milk, and then use steam injection to heat the product. Both Foster
and Finnerty rely on microwaves to heat their products. Cai is directed to a
steam machine for foods such as pasta or rice, but does not teach or suggest
the use of a vending machine containing a steam unit or cooking oatmeal
using steam. Hence none of Foster, Cai, or Finnerty suggest to one skilled in
the art to modify the vending machine of Harashima to arrive at the instant
claims.

We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the steam cooking of Cai
‘743 into the invention of Harashima. The Examiner has identified several
known techniques for cooking food products. (See, Foster, Cai‘743, and
Finnerty). Harashima describes a vending machine having a compartment
wherein an opened container is placed for cooking. This compartment
utilizes hot water to cook a food product in a cup. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would have reasonably expected that other known techniques for
cooking food products in a cup would have also been suitable for cooking
oatmeal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that other known techniques for cooking food products would have
been suitable for incorporation into a vending machine. “For obviousness
under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In
re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appeal 2011-012913
Application 11/ 588,661

4
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art
routinely following the combined teachings of the references as combined
by the Examiner would have reasonably arrived at the claimed method of
preparing cooked oatmeal. See, e.g., KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007).

For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner we
affirm the rejections of claims 7, and 9-11.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 7, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED

sld