SEB S.A.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 20212020003866 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021) 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. 14/372,374 07/15/2014 Sebastien Volatier SEBREG 3.3-002 1067 530 7590 05/26/2021 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK 20 COMMERCE DRIVE CRANFORD, NJ 07016 EXAMINER LEFF, STEVEN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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): eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEBASTIEN VOLATIER and DOMINIQUE EXCOFFIER Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAN D. RANGE, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–16, 19, 21, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SEB S.A. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The claims and art applied in this appeal is similar to that of Appeal 2020- 003852. Our decision is, thus, also similar. Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER3 Appellant describes the invention as relating to “a method for implementing an apparatus for cooking a food item, comprising at least one heating plate in contact with which the food can be cooked.” Spec. 1:5–8. In particular, Appellant seeks to provide “automatic cooking that is truly favorable to the food and to the taste of the user.” Id. at 1:26–28. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce it below while adding emphasis to certain key recitations: 1. A method for cooking a food item with an apparatus comprising: calculating, with the apparatus, a cooking duration for a food item in contact with and between two heating plates of the apparatus, using at least a surface area (Z) occupied by the food item on at least one heating plate of the apparatus, wherein the surface area is obtained from temperature data variations measured with a temperature sensor located at a periphery of the at least one heating plate occupied by the food item; heating, with one or more resistor(s) in the apparatus, the food item in contact with two heating plates of the apparatus at the calculated cooking duration; and indicating, with the apparatus and to a user at an end of the heating of the food, information which depends on at least one internal cooking temperature value (X) of the food stored in the apparatus, wherein different internal cooking temperatures (X) of the food item which correspond respectively to different 3 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 23, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 9, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated February 25, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed April 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 3 cooking states of the food are stored in memory of the apparatus, and wherein the information indicates to the user that the cooking state corresponding to the cooking duration has been achieved. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The other independent claims on appeal (claims 12, 16, 19, and 21) similarly require calculation of a cooking time based on, at least in part, a surface area occupied by the food (or apparatus capable of performing such a calculation). Id. at 24–30. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Koether et al. (“Koether”) US 4,036,995 July 19, 1977 Goessler et al. (“Goessler”) US 4,511,789 Apr. 16, 1985 Nevarez et al. (“Nevarez”) US 2006/0254430 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Imgram et al. (“Imgram”) US 2007/0288192 A1 Dec. 13, 2007 Ruff et al. (“Ruff”) US 2010/0274527 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 Gaffney et al. (“Gaffney”) WO 2005/082212 A1 Sept. 9, 2005 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 12–15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nevarez in view of Imgram. Ans. 3. B. Claims 1–8, 10, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nevarez in view of Imgram and Goessler. Id. at 5. Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 4 C. Claims 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Imgram in view of Nevarez and Gaffney. Id. at 11. D. Claims 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Imgram in view of Nevarez, Gaffney, and Koether. Id. at 21. E. Claims 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nevarez in view of Imgram, Gaffney, and Koether. Id. F. Claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Imgram in view of Nevarez and Ruff. Id. G. Claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nevarez in view of Imgram and Ruff. Id. at 22. OPINION The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies. Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 5 Because we decide this appeal based on a recitation recited, in substance, by each independent claim, we focus our analysis on claim 1. This analysis is equally applicable to each of the independent claims and, therefore, all of the dependent claims as well. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Imgram in view of Nevarez and Gaffney or, alternatively, Nevarez in view of Imgram and Goessler (alone or with along with Koether). Ans. 5, 11, 21. The Examiner finds that Imgram teaches calculating a first cooking duration as a function of a surface area (Z) occupied by the food. Id. at 11–12 (citing, for example, Imgram ¶¶ 33, 45). The Examiner finds that Nevarez “teaches a quantity of food on the heating plates with respect to a reference quantity since more food would require additional cooking time at a constant temperature or higher temperatures where a smaller quantity would require less.” Id. at 13. The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify the surface area (Z) occupied by the food obtained by heating plate measurements where are directly influenced by the temperature of the food as taught by Nevarez.” Id.4 Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately establish that the combined references teach or suggest calculation of cooking duration based on surface area occupied by food. Appeal Br. 13. We agree. We begin our analysis with claim construction. Each independent claim recites calculating cooking time duration using, at least in part, “surface area (Z) occupied by the food” or refers to apparatus for performing such a 4 The Examiner relies on Goessler or Gaffney as teaching resistor components that are not pertinent to this decision. Id. at 7, 15. Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 6 calculation. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Notably, the claim does not recite surface area of the food but rather surface area that the food occupies. Each independent claim also requires “two heating plates.” In the context of both the claims and the Specification, the word “occupied” refers to the food occupying a heating plate (in other words, the food contacts a heating plate). See, e.g., Spec. 3:22–33 (explaining that the food is in contact with the heating plate and referring to estimation “of the surface area (Z) occupied by this food on the heating plate”). The recited “surface area (Z) occupied,” therefore, is the surface area of one of the heating plates that is occupied by (i.e., in contact with) the food. The Examiner’s explanation of Imgram and Nevarez does not adequately establish that they teach or suggest calculating cooking time based on surface area of the heating plate occupied by the food. Imgram is primarily concerned with cooking two or more “especially lumpy” items and makes use of a temperature probe to determine how cooked an item is. Ingram ¶¶ 1, 26. Imgram acknowledges that the items may have different “volumes, weights, diameters and/or surface areas” and refers to these concepts as “size.” Id. ¶ 33. Imgram may make use of a temperature probe to derive size of an item. Id. ¶ 34. The size information, in turn, may be used to adjust the “cooking process.” Id. ¶ 47. Thus, Imgram fairly suggests that its invention may calculate overall food surface area and use overall food surface area to adjust cooking time. The Examiner has not, however, established that Imgram determines surface area of the heating plate contacting the food or uses this particular surface area information to calculate cooking time. Reply Br. 4–7. Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 7 Nevarez determines cooking time based on the category of food being cooked and based on thickness of the food. Nevarez ¶¶ 20, 21, 95, 96. Nevarez suggests adjusting cooking time based on the temperature profile for the food and based upon “quality, density, food starting temperature (frozen/unfrozen) and the like.” Id. ¶ 91. The Examiner acknowledges that Nevarez is silent to “surface area.” Ans. 23. While we agree with the Examiner that Nevarez may suggest the well-known concept that size of the food affects cooking time and may adjust cooking based on temperature of the heating plate which, in turn, may be impacted by food touching the heating plate (id. at 23–26), the Examiner does not adequately establish that Nevarez, or Nevarez in combination with Imgram or any other references, teaches or suggests calculating a cooking time as a function of surface area of the heating plate contacting the food. The Examiner’s treatment of dependent claims does not cure the error we address above. We, thus, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 12–15, 16 103 Nevarez, Imgram 12–15, 16 1–8, 10, 19, 21, 23 103 Nevarez, Imgram, Goessler 1–8, 10, 19, 21, 23 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, 23 103 Imgram, Nevarez, Gaffney 1–8, 10– 13, 16, 19, 21, 23 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, 23 103 Imgram, Nevarez, Gaffney, Koether 1–8, 10– 13, 16, 19, 21, 23 Appeal 2020-003866 Application 14/372,374 8 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, 23 103 Nevarez, Imgram, Gaffney, Koether 1–8, 10– 13, 16, 19, 21, 23 13–15 103 Imgram, Nevarez, Ruff 13–15 13–15 103 Nevarez, Imgram, Ruff 13–15 Overall Outcome 1–8, 10– 16, 19, 21, 23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation