Joshua Anthony et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14568471 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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.
14/568,471 12/12/2014 Joshua Anthony EUP0001USP 1003
130401 7590 09/03/2019
Cantor Colburn - Euro-Pro
20 Church Street
22nd. Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3207
EXAMINER
ROSARIO-APONTE, ALBA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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):
USPTOPatentMail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA ANTHONY, JUSTIN RILEY,
and DARWIN KEITH-LUCAS
____________

Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ROBERT L. KINDER, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–26, 31, and 32.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We do not sustain the Examiner’s
§§ 102 and 103 rejections, but we do sustain the Examiner’s § 112 rejection.
Thus, we AFFIRM.

1 Appellants contend that “[t]he real party in interest in this appeal is
SharkNinja Operating LLC.” App, Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 were cancelled, and claims 27–30 have been
withdrawn. See App. Br. 2, Claims App.
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relate[s] to a system and method for brewing
beverages, and more particularly to a system and method of automatically
brewing a beverage having a desired flavor profile.” Spec. 1, ¶ 2 (substitute
Spec. filed Mar. 20, 2015). The Specification describes “that pre-soaking or
wetting the ground coffee with water, such as prior to delivering the majority
of the hot water used to brew the coffee, may result in a brewed coffee
having a more pleasant taste than brewed coffee produced without pre-
soaking the ground coffee.” Id. at 10, ¶ 60. This is so because “[p]re-
soaking the ground coffee releases gasses trapped within the coffee grounds,
such as carbon dioxide for example,” and “[a]s a result, the portion of the
ground coffee configured to evenly absorb and filter the water is increased.”
Id. “The water used for pre-soaking the ground coffee may be referred to
herein as ‘bloom water’ and the amount of time that the boom water is
exposed to the ground coffee to pre-soak the ground coffee is referred to as
‘bloom time.’” Id. Further, “[b]rew water is delivered to the ground coffee
after completion of pre-soaking of the ground coffee with the bloom water
for a bloom time.” Id.

Independent Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 32 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and depicted below with certain claim limitation given
emphasis.

1. An automated beverage brewing apparatus
comprising:
a housing;
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

3
a user interface including a first input for sensing one of a
plurality of beverage sizes and a second input for selecting one
of a plurality of beverage types, each of said plurality of
beverage types having a different strength;
a brew basket configured to receive a quantity of
flavorant;
a shower head arranged adjacent the brew basket
configured to evenly distribute said fluid over said flavorant;
a reservoir configured to hold a volume of fluid sufficient
to prepare a brewed beverage of any of said plurality of
beverage sizes;
a heating mechanism arranged in fluid communication
with said shower head and said reservoir, said heating
mechanism being configured to heat a fluid supplied from the
reservoir before supplying said fluid to said shower head; and
a controller operably coupled to said user interface and
said heating mechanism, said controller being configured to
prepare a beverage using stored information in response to a
selected beverage size and a selected beverage type, said
preparation including:
a bloom cycle where a bloom volume of fluid is
provided to said brew basket to wet said flavorant,
wherein substantially all of said bloom volume is
retained within said brew basket; and
a brew cycle where a brew volume of fluid is
provided to said brew basket to extract flavor from said
flavorant, wherein substantially all of said brew volume
is output from said brew basket;
wherein a bloom time elapses between said bloom
cycle and said brew cycle, said bloom time being
determined using stored information accessible by the
controller, wherein the bloom time is automatically
varied in response to a selected beverage size and a
selected beverage type to enhance a taste of the prepared
beverage.
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

4
App. Br., Claim App.
Evidence
Rahn US 7,503,253 B2 Mar. 17, 2009
McLaughlin US 2011/0212231 Al Sept. 1, 2011
Fenna WO 2012/093269 A2 July 12, 2012

Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–26, 31 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description. Final Action 2. As noted
below, neither the Examiner, nor Appellants address this ground of rejection
in their respective briefing.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 26, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Fenna. Final Action 3–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fenna and Rahn. Final Action 7–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 12–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fenna and McLaughlin. Final Action 8–11.

Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

5
ANALYSIS
A. Written Description (§ 112(a)) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
8, 9, 12–26, 31 and 32.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–26, 31 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)3 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Appellants did not address this rejection in their appeal brief. “Filing
a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of
all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue – or, more broadly, on a particular rejection – the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.” In re Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
9, 12–26, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

B. Rejections Pursuant to §§ 102/103 Based on Fenna
Independent claim 1 recites a
controller being configured to prepare a beverage using
stored information in response to a selected beverage size and a
selected beverage type, said preparation including: . . . said
bloom time being determined using stored information

3 We also note that the claim language “to enhance a taste of the prepared
beverage” found in claims 1 and 32 appears to be a subjective limitation.
See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV) (“When a subjective term is used in the claim,
the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some
standard for measuring the scope of the term, similar to the analysis for a
term of degree. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow
the public to determine the scope of the claim. . . . [See] In re Musgrave,
431 F.2d 882, 893[] (CCPA 1970).”).
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

6
accessible by the controller, wherein the bloom time is
automatically varied in response to a selected beverage size and
a selected beverage type to enhance a taste of the prepared
beverage.
App. Br., Claim App. (Claim 1) (collectively, the “bloom time” limitations).
Claim 32 recites similar limitations. Because the claim describes a specific
structure (the controller, see Spec. ¶ 75) “configured to” perform specific
functionality, we do not agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that this
language is entitled to no weight. See Aspex Eyeware, Inc. v. Marchon
Eyeware, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Below, we examine
whether Fenna discloses the “bloom time” limitations as determined by the
Examiner.
The Examiner determines that Fenna discloses the “bloom time”
limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 32. See Final Action 4. The
Examiner finds that “all of the limitations related to preparing the beverage
are considered functional language, therefore, little or no patentable weight
is given.” Id. The Examiner also cites to Fenna’s Figure 14 and page 4,
lines 26–31, as providing disclosure of the bloom time limitations. Id.
According to the Examiner, “Fenna teaches wherein a bloom time (pause as
shown in Fig. 14) elapses between said bloom cycle and said brew cycle
(page 4, lines 19–31; Fig. 14), said bloom time being determined using
stored information accessible by the controller (i.e. stored routines/routines;
Fig. 14; page 41, lines 26–30).” Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds that
“the bloom time is automatically varied in response to a selected beverage
size and a selected beverage type to enhance a taste of the prepared beverage
[]based on the stored routine/program.” Id. (citing Fenna, Fig. 14; page 4,
lines 28–31; page 41, lines 26–30). Further, the Examiner reasons that “the
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

7
system is capable of having several routines or programs with different
bloom times for a particular beverage size or beverage type which can be
stored and accessed by the controller.” Id.
Appellants contend that although Fenna “discloses that it may be
desirable to pre-wet the coffee solids and then after a predetermined delay,
perform an infusion process,” Fenna does not “disclose[]s that a controller
automatically determines the length of the delay using stored information.”
App. Br. 7. Further, Appellants argue that Fenna does not disclose “that the
length of the delay is configured to vary based on the inputs provided to the
system,” which is required by both claims 1 and 32. Id. Appellants point
out that the cited portions of Fenna describe a bloom time pause being the
same, regardless of the size of beverage selected. Id. (describing a 10
second pause shown in Figure 14 regardless of volume). Appellants note
that although Fenna describes allowing the “volumes and dispensing periods
adjusted for a particular beverage,” the bloom time can only be set as a
defined input by the user – “an interface may be provided that allows a user
to select the different parameters of a dispensing cycle, e.g., including
infusion time.” Id. at 7–8 (quoting Fenna, page 41, lines 26–30). Thus,
according to Appellants, Fenna does not teach that a variation in bloom time
is determined automatically by a controller using stored information in
response to a selected beverage size and a selected beverage type.
Examining Fenna, the reference discloses a bloom time (Fenna, page
4, lines 19–31), but Fenna does not teach that the bloom time is determined
using stored information accessible by the controller and that the bloom time
is automatically varied in response to a selected beverage size and a selected
beverage type. The bloom time, or pause time described by Fenna, remains
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

8
constant regardless of the size of the beverage being prepared, or changeable
by direct user input as discussed below. See Fenna, page 40, line 36–page
41, line 9, Fig. 14 (describing ten second pauses when dispensing a cup or a
carafe of an infused beverage). Further, Fenna’s disclosure that “dispensing
periods” may be adjusted for a particular beverage (id. at page 41, lines 26–
27), does not teach adjusting this bloom time, or pause between the
prewetting phase and the infusion phase. Fenna states that “[a]s well as (or
instead of) the program buttons, an interface may be provided that allows a
user to select the different parameters of a dispensing cycle, e.g. including
infusion time, beverage volume, 30 bypass water volume, etc.” Id. at page
41, lines 26–30 (emphasis added). Allowing a user to select an infusion time
does not teach the claim requirement of the bloom time being automatically
selected by the controller based on beverage size and a selected beverage
type.
The Examiner does not establish adequately that Fenna discloses, in
an anticipatory manner, the “bloom time” limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 32. The Examiner also does not establish that the “bloom
time” limitations at issue are an inherent characteristic of Fenna’s operation.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Fenna.
Consequently, and because the Examiner does not make any further
distinct findings or determinations as to why claims 1 and 32 would have
been obvious based on Fenna with any other reference, we likewise reverse
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 8, 9, and 12–26 based on Fenna in
combination with other references.
Appeal 2017-011827
Application 14/568,471

9
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–26, 31 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 26, 31 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Fenna.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fenna and Rahn.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fenna and McLaughlin.
Because at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner is:

AFFIRMED