FUJI ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020003596 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
15/819,728 11/21/2017 Kenya NAGAYOSHI SAK-032 1801
32628 7590 06/02/2021
KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP
2318 MILL ROAD
SUITE 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848
EXAMINER
TRAN, TIFFANY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
docketing@ipfirm.com
office@uspatentagents.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KENYA NAGAYOSHI

Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2 and 4. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “FUJI
ELECTRIC CO., LTD.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 2, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
2. A drink dispenser comprising:
an undiluted-solution storage unit that stores undiluted
milk solution at cool temperature;
a steam supplying unit that supplies heated steam;
an air supplying unit that supplies compressed air;
a mixing unit that is structured to be supplied with the
steam from the steam supplying unit, the undiluted milk
solution from the undiluted-solution storage unit, and the
compressed air from the air supplying unit, and that makes,
when the steam and the undiluted milk solution are supplied,
warmed liquid steamed milk by mixing the steam and the
undiluted milk solution, and makes, when the steam, the
undiluted milk solution, and the compressed air are supplied,
milk with foam warmed by the steam and foamed with the
compressed air, by mixing the steam, the undiluted milk
solution, and the compressed air;
a foaming unit that increases foam in the milk with foam
supplied from the mixing unit to make milk foam;
a nozzle unit that includes a nozzle main body having an
opening at a top portion thereof and a nozzle cover covering the
opening to form a container in which each of the warmed liquid
steamed milk and the milk foam supplied from the mixing unit
and the foaming unit is temporarily stored to remove steam, and
that pours the warmed liquid steamed milk that is made by the
mixing unit and the milk foam made by the foaming unit, the
nozzle main body including
a bottom portion formed to be gradually inclined
downward as approaching to one end portion apart from
another end portion opposite to the one end portion, where each
of the warmed liquid steamed milk and the milk foam is
supplied, and having an inclined surface at a side of the another
Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728

3

end portion to collide each of the warmed liquid steamed milk
and the milk foam with an acute angle, and
a nozzle part formed at the one end portion from
which each of the warmed liquid steamed milk and the milk
foam is poured; and
a control unit that controls the undiluted-solution storage
unit, the steam supplying unit, the air supplying unit, and the
mixing unit to perform a liquid steamed milk pouring process in
which the steam and the undiluted milk solution are supplied to
the mixing unit, and the warmed liquid steamed milk made by
the mixing unit is poured through the nozzle unit, and a milk
foam pouring process in which the steam, the undiluted milk
solution, and the compressed air are supplied to the mixing unit,
the milk with foam that is made and foamed by the mixing unit
is supplied to the foaming unit, and the milk foam that is made
by the foaming unit is poured through the nozzle unit,
wherein the control unit performs the milk foam pouring
process and then the liquid steamed milk pouring process to
pour drink with the warmed liquid steamed milk and the milk
foam into a drink container when a drink with milk is selected.

Rejection
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Büttiker (US 2010/0212508 A1, pub. Aug. 26, 2010) in view of Green
(US 2004/0009281 A1, pub. Jan. 15, 2004) and Loetscher (US 2,239,008,
iss. Apr. 22, 1941).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Büttiker teaches substantially all of the
subject matter of claim 2. See Final Act. 4–8 (citing Büttiker ¶¶ 35–36,
45–47, Figs. 1–2, Abstract). More specifically, the Examiner finds that
Büttiker’s dispensing device 10, which includes container 40, second line
Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728

4

16, third line 17, chamber 19, emulsifying chamber 29, two outlets 30.1, and
control device 35, corresponds to the claimed drink dispenser, which
includes an undiluted-solution storage unit, a steam supplying unit, an air
supplying unit, a mixing unit, a foaming unit, a nozzle unit, and a control
unit. Final Act. 4–8.
The Examiner also finds that Büttiker fails to explicitly teach the
claimed nozzle unit’s bottom portion and nozzle part, and that “steam is
removed from the nozzle unit.” Id. at 8. To remedy the deficiencies of
Büttiker’s teachings with respect to the claimed invention, the Examiner
finds that Green teaches the claimed nozzle unit’s bottom portion and nozzle
part and Loetscher teaches removing steam from a port. Id. at 8–11. The
Examiner modifies Büttiker’s nozzle unit with the teachings of Green “so
that the nozzle can have more space to contain the steam milk liquid of
foam” and Loetscher “in order to allow the unnecessary steam to exhaust to
atmosphere.” Id. at 10–11. We determine that the Examiner’s rejection is
adequately supported.
The Appellant suggests that the Examiner errs by finding that
Büttiker’s chamber 19 and emulsifying chamber 29 correspond to the
claimed mixing unit and foaming unit, respectively. See Appeal Br. 7. The
Appellant’s suggestion, however, fails to offer persuasive evidence and/or
technical reasoning why the Examiner’s findings are inadequately supported.
The Appellant argues that Büttiker and Green fail to teach claim 2’s
recitation,
a nozzle unit that includes a nozzle main body having an
opening at a top portion thereof and a nozzle cover covering the
opening to form a container in which each of the warmed liquid
Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728

5

steamed milk and the milk foam supplied from the mixing unit
and the foaming unit is temporarily stored to remove steam.
See Appeal Br. 7, 8. The Appellant also argues that “Loetscher does not
disclose or suggest the nozzle unit of claim 2.” Id. at 9. The Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive.
As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Büttiker for substantially
all of the aforementioned recitation of claim 2, but not the claim language
“to remove steam.” The Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner finds
that Büttiker does not explicitly disclose “steam removed from the nozzle
unit.” Id. at 8. The Examiner’s rejection relies on Loetscher for the teaching
of removing steam from a port. In this regard, we note that the Appellant
acknowledges that “Loetscher was cited to show a valve container
comprising a steam inlet and an exhausted system port.” Id. at 9. And, the
Examiner’s rejection modifies Büttiker’s nozzle based on Loetscher’s
teaching. Further, although the Examiner relies on Green’s teaching to
modify Büttiker’s nozzle unit –– specifically, the claimed nozzle unit’s
bottom portion and nozzle part –– the Appellant fails to address how the
modification of Büttiker’s nozzle unit in view of Green’s teachings prevents
the combined teachings of Büttiker, Green, and Loetscher to result in the
aforementioned recitation of claim 2.
The Appellant states:
[I]t is also defined that the bottom portion has an inclined
surface at a side of the another end portion to collide each of the
warmed liquid steamed milk and the milk foam with an acute
angle. Green does not disclose or suggest the arrangement with
the acute angle.
Id. The Appellant’s statement refers to claim 2’s recitation, “a bottom
portion . . . having an inclined surface at a side of the another end portion to
Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728

6

collide each of the warmed liquid steamed milk and the milk foam with an
acute angle.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Appellant’s statement merely
points out that Green does not disclose what claim 2 recites. Therefore, the
statement “will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points
out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted the same language
in the prior rule under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “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”). Further, we note that the Examiner finds that Green
teaches a bottom portion “having an inclined surface at a side of the another
end portion to collide each of the warmed liquid steamed milk and the milk
foam with an acute angle” and supplements this finding by annotating
Green’s Figure 2. Final Act. 9; Ans. 7. We determine that the Appellant’s
statement does not explain error in this finding.
The Appellant argues:
In Green, milk is supplied through only the nozzle body
240 with the diffuser 350. It is not possible to combine the
nozzle body 240 with the diffuser 35[0] of Green to the outlet
device 28 or the dispensing device 10 of Buettiker. Even if
Buettiker is combined with Green, the nozzle unit of claim 2 is
not obvious.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because an explanation as to why the Examiner’s proposed combination is
not possible is absent from the Appeal Brief. Further, the Appellant’s
argument fails to offer persuasive evidence and/or technical reasoning why
Appeal 2020-003596
Application 15/819,728

7

the Examiner’s modification of Büttiker’s nozzle unit with the teachings of
Green “so that the nozzle can have more space to contain the steam milk
liquid of foam” is not adequately supported.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 2. The Appellant does not separately argue the rejection
of claim 4. Therefore, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 4 103 Büttiker, Green,
Loetscher
2, 4

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED