Ex Parte Van Der Burg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

13818002 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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. 13/818,002 02/20/2013 Johan Michiel Van Der Burg 2010P01016WOUS 1275 24737 7590 09/05/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue CALVETTI, FREDERICK F Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHAN MICHIEL VAN DER BURG and REMCO LINNEWIEL Appeal 2016-006669 Application 13/818,002 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-006669 Application 13/818,002 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 4—15. App. Br. 1. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. See Response to Final Rejection dated July 31, 2015. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an apparatus for preparing food with heated air. Spec., 1:2-4. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for preparing food comprising: a. an inner wall defining a food receiving space, said inner wall including an air inlet and an air discharge opening; b. a fan arranged for moving a flow of air successively through the air inlet, the food receiving space and the air discharge opening; c. an outer wall disposed relative to said inner wall to cooperatively form an air guide for returning the flow of air from the air discharge opening toward the air inlet separately from the food receiving space; d. a heater disposed in the apparatus for effecting heating of said flow of air; e. a vent formed through the outer wall and in communication with the food receiving space to provide an outlet enabling a portion of the flow of air to exhaust to outside of the apparatus; and f. an air guide member disposed adjacent to the fan and extending to an edge of the vent to direct said portion of the flow of air toward the vent. 2 Appeal 2016-006669 Application 13/818,002 REFERENCES Erickson US 5,513,558 EP 2034872 B1 May 7, 1996 Apr. 21,2010Weij REJECTION Claims 1 and 4—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weij and Erickson. Final Act. 2—3. For independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Weij teaches an apparatus for preparing food, the apparatus having the claimed inner wall, air inlet, air discharge opening, fan, outer wall, and heater. Final Act. 2—3. Although the Examiner also finds that Weij’s device includes a vent and air guide member, id. at 3, the Examiner acknowledges that the claims differ from Weij’s device in that, with respect to the claimed device, “air is vented externally of the apparatus beyond the chamber for the food using air guide member extending to an edge of the vent.” Id.\ Ans. 3.1 Therefore, the Examiner relies on Erickson to teach a vent and air guide member. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, “Erickson teaches such a vent 1 In the Final Action, the Examiner alleges that Weij’s air discharge opening 6 corresponds to the claimed vent. Final Act. 3. But, as the Examiner acknowledges, Weij’s opening 6 does not enable a portion of the flow of air to exhaust to the outside of the apparatus. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally cites to paragraphs 33 and 52 of Weij to teach the claimed vent. Ans. 2. These paragraphs teach using a pressure relief device to relieve pressure in the food preparation chamber caused by heating the food. Weij 1133, 52. Weij does not depict any pressure relief device, however, and the Examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have placed a pressure relief device such that an air guide member would “extend[] to an edge of the [device],” as claim 1 requires. ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2016-006669 Application 13/818,002 64 using the upper guide wall 32 or 198 with guide/vane 69A to exhaust air through the openings or fins.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious at the time of the invention to provide additional ventilation to Weij as taught by Erickson to reduce cooking time ... by at least exhausting moisture.” Id. (citing Erickson, 11:50-65). Appellants respond that Erickson does not teach the claimed vent and air-guide member, and that the Examiner has not articulated a rational reason to combine Erickson with Weij. App. Br. 14—16. Appellants first assert that Erickson’s “vent 64” refers to openings or ports in an upper portion of Erickson’s device—above upper wall 32—that are used to release heated air so as to cool the device’s upper motor, and that such vents are not part of the separate, food-cooking air flow system found below. Id. at 14. Appellants also assert that element 198, a “vent air scoop,” is part of a different embodiment than that containing ports 64, upper wall 32, or “guide/vane 69A,” and therefore cannot cooperate with any of these latter elements. Id. at 15. Finally, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reason to combine Erickson with Weij, to reduce cooking time, is described as a benefit of using vent air scoop 198, and that Erickson does not associate any such benefit to ports 64, upper wall 32, or vanes 69A. Id. at 16. According to Appellants, the Examiner does not explain how or where vent air scoop 198 would be incorporated into Weij’s device in a way that would reduce cooking time. Id. We find that the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient initial showing of obviousness of claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 4—15. First, as Appellants note, the Examiner relies 4 Appeal 2016-006669 Application 13/818,002 on teachings regarding structure from two different embodiments, but does not adequately explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined such teachings. Nor is it self-evident how these teachings would have been combined. Second, the portion of Erickson on which the Examiner relies to support a reason to combine Erickson with Weij—Erickson, 11:50-65—discusses only Erickson’s vent air scoop 198. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner has not pointed to any evidence that openings 64 or upper wall 32 would speed the cooking process. On the contrary, as Appellants point out, ports 64 and upper wall 32 only act to cool the motor of the cooking device; they are not part of the air-flow mechanism that cooks the food. Regarding mixing vanes 69A, such vanes are “located diagonally under the cooking rack [and] cause [] the air to form two or more counter-rotating air masses that dramatically improve the air exchange under the rack.” Erickson 8:16—20. While this function may conceivably speed cooking, the mixing vanes are not associated with openings 64 or upper wall 32, are not in the same embodiment as vent air scoop 198, and there is no indication they “enable [] a portion of the flow of air to exhaust to outside of the apparatus,” as claim 1 requires the vent to do. Finally, the Examiner has not explained how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated vent air scoop 198 into Weij’s device—by itself or combined in some manner with ports 64, upper wall 32 or mixing vanes 69A—to reduce cooking time. 5 Appeal 2016-006669 Application 13/818,002 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4—15 is reversed. REVERSED 6