Wolfgang Steiner

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

13993688 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
13/993,688 06/17/2013 Wolfgang Steiner 000034-013 1065
44012 7590 07/01/2020
WRB-IP LLP
801 N. Pitt Sreet , Suite 123
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MICHALSKI, SEAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
HARRY@WRB-IP.COM
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOLFGANG STEINER
Appeal 2019-002505
Application 13/993,688
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 and 5–7. Oral arguments were heard
in this case on June 4, 2020. A transcript of the hearing will be entered into
the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Novis AG. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002505
Application 13/993,688
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to an apparatus for extracting juice and pulp
from fruit or vegetables.” Spec. 1, ll. 4–5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
l. An apparatus for extracting juice and pulp from fruit or
vegetables in order to obtain a flowable mass, comprising:
a receptacle;
a cylindrical strainer located within the receptacle and
rotatable about an axis of symmetry of the strainer, the strainer
having a bottom and a perforated side wall;
a motor unit configured to rotate the strainer about its axis
of symmetry;
an inlet unit configured to permit introduction of fruit or
vegetables into the strainer;
an outlet unit configured to permit collection of flowable
mass from the receptacle, and
a flexible element having an elongated surface that
extends in a direction of the axis of symmetry, the flexible
element being located within the strainer and being urged against
an inside surface of the perforated side wall to contact the inside
surface of the perforated side wall along a line of contact when
the strainer is rotated about the axis of symmetry of the strainer,
the flexible element forming a wedge-shaped space with the
inside surface which narrows towards the line of contact when
the strainer is rotated about the axis of symmetry of the strainer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Spino
Ramirez
Le Rouzic
Le Rouzic et al.
Sugino
US 2,246,641
US 4,506,601
US 5,289,763
US 7,044,051
US 7,217,439 B2
June 24, 1941
Mar. 26, 1985
Mar. 1, 1994
May 16, 2006
May 15, 2007

Appeal 2019-002505
Application 13/993,688
3
“Lemon-Apricot Sandwiches,” Martha Stewart Living, June 2006 (“Martha
Stewart”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3.
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over LeRouzic, LeRouzic et al., Ramirez, Spino, and Martha
Stewart. Ans. 6.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over LeRouzic, LeRouzic et al., Ramirez, Spino, Martha
Stewart, and Sugino. Final Act. 11.
OPINION
Written Description
The Examiner asserts that “[t]he disclosure, taken as a whole at the
time of filing does not demonstrate enough detail for a person of ordinary
skill to conclude that the appellant had demonstrated possession of the
invention as set forth in claims 6 and 7.” Ans. 4. As Appellant points out,
however, “[t]he grounds for this rejection are unclear in view of the fact that
the subject matter is expressly disclosed in the original application.” Appeal
Br. 4. Written description deals with whether Appellant had possession of
the invention and the fact that the claims at issue are original claims suggests
possession of the invention. Appellant is correct regarding the subject
matter of claims 6 and 7 that “persons skilled in the art certainly understand
how to mount a roller and the Examiner cannot reasonably assert that
mountings for rollers are unconventional or not known in the art.” Reply Br.
3. We agree that “[t]he Examiner has failed to overcome the presumption
Appeal 2019-002505
Application 13/993,688
4
that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when
the application is filed.” Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
Obviousness
Appellant argues the claims at issue as a group, and does not
separately address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Appeal Br. 6–9. We select claim 1 as representative of the
rejected claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not generally
argue that the Examiner’s combination lacks any particular claimed element.
Appellant mainly argues that the Examiner’s combination is improper.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination “would have
destroyed the alleged invention of LeRouzic for its intended manner of
operation.” Appeal Br. 9. This is allegedly so because LeRouzic achieves
juicing of soft-flesh fruits and vegetables by disclosing “that there is a
spacing between the wall of the strainer and the blade” and that “[t]his
spacing is necessary . . . to let a layer of crushed fruit accumulate on the wall
of the strainer until the thickness of the layer exceeds the width of the
spacing between blade and strainer.” Id. 8.
Although it is true that LeRouzic teaches a specialized juicing device
that includes a gap, LeRouzic also recognizes that such a juicing device is
only necessary with soft-flesh fruits and that prior art devices “function well
with hard products such as carrots and apples.” LeRouzic col. 1, ll. 25–26.
The only specialized aspect of LeRouzic is the gap. Nothing else in
LeRouzic deviates from juicing devices already known in the art and
LeRouzic recognizes that a juicing device without such a gap would still be
an effective juicer in certain applications.
The Examiner finds “that the objective of LeRouzic was to provide a
good amount of juice, and the art as a whole recognized (specifically
Appeal 2019-002505
Application 13/993,688
5
Ramirez and Spino) that pressing blades against a strainer was an effective
means of adding pressure to the pulp and therefor obtain juice or pulp.”
Ans. 18. In that sense, the Examiner’s combination still provides for a
juicing device, it simply eliminates the gap, which may be less effective with
soft-flesh fruit. The Examiner’s combination is still adequate for juicing
hard products as recognized in LeRouzic.
Furthermore, the Examiner also finds that “the objective of LeRouzic
in allowing (and desiring) the accumulation of fruit on the blade was
because this accumulation creates a force vector of fruit against the strainer
resulting in juice.” Ans. 20. According to the Examiner “[t]his creation of a
force vector of pulp is what the contacting blades of Spino and Ramirez
achieve as well” and that “it is the choice of the amount of pressure to be
applied, or the exact mechanism to apply the pressure, from within a subset
of known mechanisms (flexible/inflexible, contacting/non-contacting) all of
which were present in the prior art.” Id. In other words, the Examiner’s
rejection assumes that one of skill in the art could have determined the force
vector achieved via the gap and stiff blade and designed a blade of sufficient
flexibility to also apply the same force vector achieved via the gap. As the
Examiner states, the gap is one way to achieve this, but the important
teaching in LeRouzic is not necessarily the gap, but the magnitude of the
force vector to achieve the desired result. In this manner, the rejection does
not go against LeRouzic’s intended purpose at all, it merely achieves the
lower force vector via a flexible blade rather than a gap. Either way, the
Examiner is correct that the proposed modification of LeRouzic is proper.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2019-002505
Application 13/993,688
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s written-description rejection is REVERSED, and the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are AFFIRMED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 7 112, 1st
paragraph
Written description 6, 7
1, 5 103 LeRouzic, LeRouzic et
al., Ramirez, Spino,
Martha Stewart
1, 5
6, 7 LeRouzic, LeRouzic et
al., Ramirez, Spino,
Martha Stewart, Sugino
6, 7
Overall
Outcome:
1, 5–7

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED