SEB S.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2021

2020003852 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 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.
14/372,324 07/15/2014 Sebastien Volatier SEB 3.3-007 7245
530 7590 05/21/2021
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
20 COMMERCE DRIVE
CRANFORD, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
LEFF, STEVEN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2021 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
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324
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 1–5, 7–15, and 17–24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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.
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a method for cooking
food using at least one heating plate in contact with the food. Spec. 1:5–8.
Appellant also seeks to provide an automatic cooking cycle favorable to
taste. Id. at 1:18–22. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce it below while
emphasizing key recitations:
1. A method for cooking a food with an apparatus to
achieve an internal cooking of the food to a greater or lesser degree as
desired by a user comprising:
placing the food in contact with at least one heating plate of the
apparatus;
calculating, with the apparatus, a first cooking duration (T)
for the food, as a function of a lowest internal cooking temperature
(X) out of different internal cooking temperatures (X) stored in a
memory of the apparatus, and a surface area (Z) occupied by the
food,
which is obtained by heating plate temperature measurements,
the first cooking duration (T) allowing the food to be cooked to the
core at a first degree of cooking;
cooking the food through the calculated first cooking duration
(T) with the apparatus, the first cooking duration (T) allowing the
food to be cooked to the core at a first degree of cooking;
indicating to the user, by the apparatus, at the end of said
calculated first cooking duration (T) that the corresponding cooking
has been achieved; and
in response to determining, with at least one temperature sensor
on the at least one heating plate of the apparatus, that the user does not
remove the food,

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 23,
2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 10, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated February 25, 2020 (“Ans.”),
and the Reply Brief filed April 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

3
• calculating by the apparatus a second cooking duration
(T) for increasing the cooking of said food which will
thus be cooked more, as a function of a second internal
cooking temperature (X) in ascending order of said
temperatures (X) stored in memory, and the surface area
(Z) occupied by the food, which is obtained by heating
plate temperature measurements, the second cooking
duration (T) allowing the food to be cooked to the core at
a second degree of cooking greater than the first degree
of cooking;
• cooking the food through the calculated second cooking
duration (T) with the apparatus; and
• indicating to the user, by the apparatus, at the end of said
calculated second cooking duration (T), that the
corresponding cooking has been achieved,
wherein the food is a single food item.

Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.) (emphases added). The other independent
claims on appeal (claims 2, 17, 18, 19, and 20) similarly require calculation
of a cooking time based on, at least in part, a surface area occupied by the
food. Id. at 23–32.

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
Nevarez et al.
(“Nevarez”)
US 2006/0254430 A1 Nov. 16, 2006
Imgram et al. (“Imgram”) US 2007/0288192 A1 Dec. 13, 2007

Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Imgram in view of Nevarez. Ans. 3.
B. Claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Nevarez in view of Imgram. Id. at 12.
C. Claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Imgram in view of Nevarez and Koether. Id. at 19.
D. Claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Nevarez in view of Imgram and Koether. Id.

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.
Because we decide this appeal based on a recitation recited, in substance, by
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

5
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 or, alternatively, Nevarez in view of Imgram (alone or in view of
other prior art). Ans. 3, 12, 19. 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 3–4 (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 5. 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 which are directly influenced by the temperature of the
food as taught by Nevarez.” Id.
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. 16. We agree. We
begin our analysis with claim construction. Each independent claim refers to
calculating cooking time duration based, at least in part, upon “surface area
(Z) occupied by the food.” See, e.g., Appeal Br. 22 (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 a “heating plate.” In
the context of both the claims and the Specification, the word “occupied”
refers to the food occupying the heating plate (in other words, the food
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

6
contacts the heating plate). See, e.g., Spec. 3:22–33 (explaining that 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 the heating plate 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. 3–6.3

3 We note that at pages 21 and 23 of the Answer, the Examiner quotes
Ingram as stating “one can immediately conclude the size or the surface of
the cooking time.” Ans. 21, 23 (emphasis added). Ingram actually refers to
“size or the surface of the cooking item.” Ingram ¶ 34. This transcription
error, in isolation, does not significantly affect our analysis, but the error
may have contributed to the Examiner’s misapplication of Ingram.
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

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.
Neveraz 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. 24. While we agree with the
Examiner that Nevarez may suggest the well-known concept that size of the
food affects cooking time (Ans. 21–22) 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), 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. See, e.g., Ans. 19 (citing Koether as teaching selection of
an internal temperature for a food to be cooked to a desired doneness). We,
thus, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–15,
17–24
103 Imgram, Nevarez 1–5, 7–15,
17–24
1–5, 7–15,
17–24
103 Nevarez, Imgram 1–5, 7–15,
17–24
1–5, 7–15,
17–24
103 Imgram, Nevarez,
Koether
1–5, 7–15,
17–24
Appeal 2020-003852
Application 14/372,324

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–15,
17–24
103 Nevarez, Imgram,
Koether
1–5, 7–15,
17–24
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–15,
17–24

REVERSED