Joshua Anthony et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201914568471 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) Copy Citation 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 App, Br. 2. 2 Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 were cancelled, and claims 27–30 have been withdrawn.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation