Keisuke Hara

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14378815 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2020)

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.
14/378,815 08/14/2014 Keisuke Hara 0020-6040PUS1 1099
127226 7590 01/02/2020
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
KIRKWOOD, SPENCER HAMMETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEISUKE HARA

Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sharp
Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and reads:
1. A heating cooker comprising:
an inner pot for accommodating therein a heating object
to be heated;
a heating cooker body for accommodating the inner pot
therein;
a heating part attached to the heating cooker body and
serving for heating the heating object;
a lid which is openably/closably attached on top of the
heating cooker body and which can be closed so as to cover the
inner pot;
a rotator rotatably placed between the heating cooker
body and the lid;
stirrers which are pivotably attached to the rotator and
which can be pivoted without opening the lid between a) a
stirring position in which the stirrers are in contact with the
heating object set in the inner pot, and b) a non-stirring position
in which the stirrers are apart from the heating object set in the
inner pot; and
a notification part notifying by pictures as to whether the
stirrers are in the stirring state or in the non-stirring state with
the lid closed.

Appeal Br. (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kubota2, Tsutomu3, and Pederson4.

2 Kobota et al., US 5,937,740, issued Aug. 17, 1999.
3 Tsutomu, JP 07-289424 A, published Nov. 7, 1995.
4 Pederson et al., US 2009/0164933 A1, published June 25, 2009.
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

3
Claims 4, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kubota, Tsutomu, Pederson5, and Meyer6.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 as unpatentable over Kubota,
Tsutomu, and Pederson
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kubota discloses an inner pot
(bread vessel 9), a heating cooker body (bread maker body 1), a lid (lid 5), a
rotator (rotation shaft 10) placed between the heating cooker body and lid,
and a notification part (display portion 33) notifying whether the stirrers are
in the stirring state or the non-stirring state with the lid closed. Final Act. 3
(citing Kubota, Figs. 1, 2 (“KNEAD”), col. 3, ll. 62–63, col. 4, ll. 16–18,
46–60). The Examiner concedes Kubota does not disclose “stirrers which
are pivotably attached to the rotator and which can be pivoted without
opening the lid between” “a stirring position” and “a non-stirring position,”
as claimed. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner relies on Tsutomu as disclosing a rice cooker
comprising stirrers (blade 4-n) pivotably attached to a rotator and which can
be pivoted without opening a lid (lid 11) between a stirring position in which
the stirrers are in contact with a heating object set in an inner pot, and a non-
stirring position in which the stirrers are apart from the heating object set in

5 Pederson is not listed in the heading of this ground of rejection. Final Act.
6. However, because claims 4, 6, and 8 each depend from a claim against
which Pederson is applied as a reference, we treat the omission of Pederson
as inadvertent.
6 Meyer et al., US 2002/0005401 A1, published Jan. 17, 2002.
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

4
the inner pot (“full automatic rice cooker with foldaway blades that go up
and down with lid closed”). Final Act. 4 (citing Tsutomu, Fig. 2, ¶ 4). The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to “replac[e] the base mounted non-folding rotator of Kubota with the
lid mounted folding rotator of Tsutomu, to prepare rice.” Id. (citing Kubota
¶ 3).
The Examiner also concedes Kubota does not disclose “notifying by
pictures,” as claimed. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Pederson as
teaching this feature. Id. (citing Pederson ¶ 49). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify
Kubota by adding Pederson’s picture notification system to the worded
notification system of Kubota, “to facilitate a user’s intuitive recognition of
a particular process stage.” Id.
Stirrers
Appellant contends neither Kubota nor Tsutomu discloses stirrers that
have all the limitations of the stirrers recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant contends Kubota does not disclose the use of stirrers in contact
with a “heating object” in its inner pot, but rather, Kubota’s kneading blade
contacts the contents in the inner pot only during the kneading phase, during
which no heat is applied in a bread machine. Id.
Appellant acknowledges Tsutomu discloses stirrers (i.e., foldable
blade 4-n) that can move up and down while washing rice. Id. at 13 (citing
Tsutomu ¶ 10)7. Appellant explains blade 4-n is stored folded up on the
lower surface of lid 11, and when rice cleaning starts, blade 4-n descends so

7 See English-language translation of Tsutomu of record in this appeal.
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

5
it is open and hanging from lid 11. Id. at 5 (citing Tsutomu Fig. 2, ¶ 10).
After stirring to wash the rice, blade 4-n moves up and is folded up and
stored in lid 11. Id. Appellant contends Tsutomu teaches the use of the
stirrers for washing rice only, and does not disclose using the stirrers “while
the rice is cooking.” Id. at 17–18 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner points out claim 1 does not recite that the
“heating object” is heated at the time of stirring. Ans. 6. The Examiner
submits that Tsutomu stirs rice prior to it being heated, and thus, the rice can
reasonably be considered a “heating object,” as claimed.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. Appellant seems to be
contending claim 1 requires the “heating object” to be subjected to heating
while the stirrers are operating. However, claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not
a method claim. It recites “a heating object to be heated” and “the heating
object set in the inner pot” for the stirring and non-stirring positions, but
does not recite any limitation requiring heating of the heating object when
the stirrers are in either the stirring state or the non-stirring state.
Appellant acknowledges Tsutomu’s foldable blade 4-n stirs rice set in
the automatic rice cooker. Appellant also appears to acknowledge that the
same rice subjected to stirring is also cooked by being heated in the
automatic rice cooker. However, in the Reply Brief, Appellant contends:
Tsutomu teaches stirring while rinsing the rice with
water prior to heating the rice, and the water used to rinse the
rice is not heated or part of the heating object, which includes
rice and additional water added for cooking. See Tsutomu at
[0008]-[0011]. The combination of the rice and the water for
rinsing is the actual object that is stirred. Id. The water for
rinsing is drained prior to heating; therefore, there is a
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

6
difference between the contents during the stirring/rinsing and
the heating object.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
This contention is unpersuasive. First, claim 1 recites no limitation
specifying what the “heating object” is. Nor does Appellant appear to argue
this term has any specific meaning in the context of Appellant’s disclosure
that distinguishes the claimed “heating object” from the “object” heated in
Tsutomu’s rice cooker. Second, even if water is drained from the rice/water
combination prior to heating the as-rinsed rice in Tsutomu, the same object
(i.e., the same rice) is, nonetheless, subjected to both stirring and heating.
For these reasons, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that the rice described in Tsutomu can be considered a “heating object” as
recited in claim 1.
Notification Part
Appellant also contends neither Kubota, Tsutomu, nor Pederson
discloses or suggests the limitation “a notification part notifying by pictures
as to whether the stirrers are in the stirring state or in the non-stirring state
with the lid closed.” Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant contends Pederson
merely discloses a single icon for each process step or stage, and does not
teach or suggest a plurality of pictures showing whether stirrers are in the
stirring state or in the non-stirring state with a lid closed. Id. at 11.
Additionally, Appellant contends Pederson is not analogous art. Id. at
14. Accordingly, it is Appellant’s position that Pederson cannot be applied
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. The test for determining whether a
prior art reference is analogous art is: “(1) whether the art is from the same
field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

7
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–659 (Fed. Cir.
1992). A reference is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the
inventor if it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
As for the field of endeavor prong of the analogous art test, Appellant
states, “[t]he present invention is a household heating cooker for use by a
consumer,” whereas “Pederson relates to large-scale commercial processes
run by industrial operators or engineers to make highly technical products,
such as paints and pharmaceuticals.” Appeal Br. 15.
As for the problem prong of the analogous art test, Appellant states
“[c]laim 1 solves the problem of the user not knowing whether or not the
stirrer is pivoted into the stirring position.” Id. at 2 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 4–10,
53). Appellant explains:
For example, a user may wish to open the lid during operation
of the heating cooker, but opening the lid of the heating cooker
with the internal stirrers in the stirring position may cause a
mess of the contents of the inner pot or the opening of the lid
may be obstructed by the stirrers.
Id. In contrast, Appellant contends, Pederson’s Figure 4 and disclosure of a
graphical icon are not reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor
faced. Id. at 15. Appellant states, “Pederson’s single graphical icon does
not communicate anything regarding internal stirrers or whether any stirrers
are in a stirring state, such that a user should not open the lid.” Id.
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

8
Appellant contends that Pederson’s graphical icon is representative of the
stage of the industrial process only. Id.
As to Appellant’s non-analogous art contention, the Examiner states
Kubota and Pederson “are related as the same technical field (automated
machine controls) and (user interface), therefore, it would have been
obvious to combine them, in order to facilitate a user’s awareness of
automated process steps.” Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s field of endeavor
position is insufficiently supported. Reply Br. 5. First, the proper
comparison for determining whether Pederson qualifies as analogous art
under this prong of the analogous art test requires that Pederson be
compared to Appellant’s invention, not Kubota. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d at
658–659. As to Appellant’s invention, we note the Specification describes
that the invention “relates to a heating cooker having a stirring function.”
Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification also describes, for example, “an object of the
present invention is to provide a heating cooker” (id. ¶ 6) and “the heating
cooker of the present invention” (id. ¶ 21). Throughout the Specification, a
rice cooker is described and illustrated as an example of heating cookers.
See, e.g., id. ¶ 20, 22 (“Fig. 1 is a schematic perspective view of a rice
10 cooker according to one embodiment of the invention”). The
Specification also describes cooking other food items (“potatoes boiled with
meat, jam or the like”) in the heater cooker. See, e.g., id. ¶ 46. Accordingly,
the Specification supports Appellant’s position that the invention relates to
the field of endeavor of heating cookers for consumer use.
In contrast, Pederson describes, “[t]he present disclosure relates
generally to process control systems and, more particularly, to methods and
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

9
apparatus to present recipe progress status information.” Peterson ¶ 1.
Although Pederson uses the word “recipe,” Appellant contends Pederson is
directed to commercial or industrial processes that are unrelated to cooking
food. Appeal Br. 11. As noted by Appellant, Pederson describes, “[a]
recipe typically includes a combination of unit procedures, operations, and
phases, all of which include instructions to control process equipment (e.g.,
tanks, vats, mixers, boilers, evaporators, pumps, valves, etc.) to transfer,
mix, etc. ingredients in a process control system to generate a product.” Id.
at 10; see Pederson ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Even assuming Pederson relates
to the technical field of “automated machine controls” and “user interfaces,”
as found by the Examiner, this technical field still differs from Appellant’s.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established
by a preponderance of the evidence that Pederson relates to the same field of
endeavor as Appellant’s invention.
Second, the Examiner does not appear to respond to Appellant’s
contention that Pederson is also not reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by Appellant. Accordingly, the Examiner also does not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Pederson is “reasonably pertinent” to the
problem faced by the inventor.
For these reasons, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner
has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pederson
qualifies as analogous art with respect to the claimed heating cooker. As
such, the Examiner has not articulated an adequate reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Kubota,
Tsutomu, and Pederson as proposed to result in the claimed heater cooker.
Appeal 2018-005642
Application 14/378,815

10
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
7, and 9, as unpatentable over Kubota, Tsutomu, and Pederson.

Claims 4, 6, and 8 as unpatentable over Kubota, Tsutomu,
Pederson, and Meyer
The Examiner relies on Meyer as teaching “a lock mechanism for
locking the lid, wherein the display part displays whether or not the lock
mechanism is locking the lid,” as recited in claims 4 and 6. Final Act. 7–8.
Claim 8 depends from claim 4. Accordingly, because the Examiner does not
rely on Meyer in a manner that cures the deficiency of the rejection of claim
1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 8 as unpatentable over
Kubota, Tsutomu, Pederson, and Meyer.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7, 9 § 103(a) Kubota, Tsutomu,
and Pederson
1–3, 5, 7, 9
4, 6, 8 § 103(a) Kubota, Tsutomu,
Pederson, and
Meyer
4, 6, 8
Overall
Outcome
1–9

REVERSED