Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 18, 2021

2020004832 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 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. 15/427,982 02/08/2017 Maximilian Koennings 0154-007US1 4819 53666 7590 08/18/2021 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP Mark Bellermann P.O. Box 1077 Middletown, MD 21769 EXAMINER KRCHA, MATTHEW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1798 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/18/2021 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): docketing@brakehughes.com uspto@brakehughes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MAXIMILIAN KOENNINGS, MARIA JOSE RESENDE, GEORG HACKERT, JULIUS GANNS, and STEFAN HILGERS ____________ Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, 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 1–6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to cooking. Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, synchronization of a cooking apparatus and remote appliance is achieved through use of a control system which receives and executes a recipe program. Id. ¶ 11. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A control system for synchronizing food processing steps performed by a multi-function cooking apparatus with food processing steps for performance by one or more remote kitchen appliances, the system comprising: a recipe program interface having access to a recipe program on a data storage device, wherein the recipe program is configured to be executed by the cooking apparatus and wherein the recipe program has internal instructions configured to control functions of the cooking apparatus for performing food processing steps thereon, and has at least one external instruction for a remote food processing step performed by a first remote kitchen appliance so that food processing steps performed by the cooking apparatus are in sync with food processing steps performed by the first remote kitchen appliance when the food processing steps are performed in compliance with corresponding control parameter settings in the recipe program instructions; a control parameter interface configured to receive, from a remote temperature sensor, temperature data reflecting one or more temperature values associated with a component of food product being processed by the first remote kitchen appliance, in response to the execution of the at least one external instruction; a control parameter evaluator configured to check compliance of the received temperature data with control parameters of the at least one external instruction by determining whether the received temperature data is within a tolerance range associated with the parameter settings included in the at least one external instruction; and a recipe program adjustment component configured to Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 3 adjust, not-yet-executed program instructions of the recipe program, if the received temperature data does not comply with the control parameters of the at least one external instruction, the adjustment being based on the evaluation of the received temperature data to re-synchronize the cooking apparatus with the first remote kitchen appliance wherein not-yet-executed program instructions correspond to program instructions subsequent to the currently executed program instruction. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Manuel,2 Reese,3 Lagerlöf,4 and Elston.5 II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Manuel, Reese, Lagerlöf, Elston, and Greiner.6 III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Manuel, Reese, Lagerlöf, Elston, and Sorenson.7 OPINION Rejection I: obviousness over Manuel, Reese, Lagerlöf, and Elston With regard to Rejection I, Appellant separately argues only claims 1 and 2. Appeal Br. 7–18. We select claim 1 as representative of the non- argued claims. Claims 3–6 stand or fall with claim 1. 2 US 2015/0064314 A1, published March 5, 2015 (“Manuel”). 3 US 2013/0297042 A1, published November 7, 2013 (“Reese”). 4 WO 2013/184058 A1, published December 12, 2013 (“Lagerlöf”). 5 US 2008/0105134 A1, published May 8, 2008 (“Elston”). 6 US 6,753,027 B1, issued June 22, 2004 (“Greiner”). 7 US 8,624,169 B1, issued January 7, 2014 (“Sorenson”). Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 4 Claim 1 Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds Manuel discloses a cooking control system which includes a recipe program interface for accessing a stored recipe program, a control parameter interface for receiving temperature data associated with a food product being processed, and a recipe program adjustment component for adjusting recipe program instructions in response to detected food temperature data. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Reese and Lagerlöf collectively would have provided a reason to modify Manuel’s cooking system to further include and synchronize additional remote cooking appliances. Id. at 4. The Examiner’s findings restated above are supported by a preponderance of the evidence presented. Manuel discloses, with reference to Manuel’s Figure 1, a cooking appliance control system including electronic device 104 which obtains cooking instructions (e.g. cooking temperature and duration) from a database stored on a server 106, and determining device 102 which receives and communicates temperature of a food item being processed. Manuel ¶¶ 17, 23, Fig. 1. Manuel also teaches electronic device 104 is configured to receive adjusted recipe program instructions based on determined food temperature, such that a set temperature of a cooking appliance can be manually or automatically adjusted to achieve a desired cooking completion time. Id. ¶ 48. Although Manuel discloses control of a single cooking apparatus to achieve a desired cooking completion time, Lagerlöf teaches a similar control system for simultaneously controlling multiple cooking pots, so that cooking operations of different food items can be synchronized to a common completion time. See Lagerlöf 12:10–15 (explaining that Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 5 individual control of distinct cooking pots serves to “synchronize these processes to each other such that the starting moments and end moments are selected to have the complete meal ready at a certain time”); id. 15:10–12 (“The timer means 306 also governs the timing relation between the different heat means for example with the aim that the different food items will be ready for serving simultaneously or in a certain sequence.”). Although Lagerlöf exemplifies application of the disclosed control system to a cooking apparatus having multiple distinct heating sources (Lagerlöf 13:17–20), Reese teaches simultaneous control of multiple distinct cooking appliances (Reese ¶ 36). Appellant argues Manuel discloses only a single cooking apparatus and, for that reason, does not teach synchronization of a cooking apparatus and a remote cooking appliance, and does not teach a recipe program having instructions for controlling both a cooking apparatus and a remote appliance. Appeal Br. 7–12. However, Lagerlöf teaches the concept of a recipe program having control instructions for multiple cooking appliances. See Lagerlöf 13:26–28 (“A set of food cooking process data has one to four food item cooking instructions, one for each heating source 301a-301d that is required to cook a complete meal.”); see also id. 16:28–30 (“The instruction part 603 contains a set of food cooking instructions; one instruction for each item to be cooked on a respective heating source.”). Lagerlöf further teaches synchronization of the multiple cooking appliances to achieve either simultaneous or sequential completion. Id. 15:10–12.8 Appellant’s 8 Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that Lagerlöf “synchronizes to multiple different recipes,” whereas claim 1 requires a single recipe program used for multiple components. Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant’s argument does not identify any substantive distinction between the recited recipe program and Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 6 arguments addressing Manuel in isolation are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination which is based on the combined teachings of Manuel and Lagerlöf. Appellant also argues Reese does not teach a single recipe program for controlling different cooking appliances (id. at 13–15); Reply Br. 4–6. As noted, however, Lagerlöf teaches use of a single recipe program in the form of a set of cooking instructions for multiple cooking appliances. Lagerlöf 13:26–28; 16:28–30. Appellant contends Lagerlöf does not teach adjustment of cooking conditions during the cooking process (id. at 17). To the contrary, Lagerlöf expressly teaches executing cooking instructions based on feedback information, including food item temperature, obtained during a cooking process. Lagerlöf 17:1–8. Moreover, Manuel already provides feedback control and adjustment of cooking conditions based on food item temperature. Manuel ¶ 48. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites the recipe program includes instructions for control and synchronization of an additional remote kitchen appliance. Appellant argues this feature is not disclosed or suggested in the applied prior art. Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 7. However, as noted, Lagerlöf expressly teaches providing recipe instructions for simultaneous control and synchronization of as many as four cooking appliances. Lagerlöf’s “set of food cooking process data” having “one to four food item cooking instructions.” Lagerlöf 13:26–28. Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 7 For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 is sustained. Rejections II and III: obviousness of claims 3 and 4, respectively Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4, each of which depends from claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 and 4 are sustained for the reasons set forth above in connection with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 6 103 Manuel, Reese, Lagerlöf, Elston 1, 2, 5, 6 3 103 Manuel, Reese, Lagerlöf, Elston, Greiner 3 4 103 Manuel, Reese, Lagerlöf, Elston, Sorenson 4 Overall outcome 1–6 Appeal 2020-004832 Application 15/427,982 8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED