Ex Parte Florin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

13391165 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/391,165 02/17/2012
29157 7590
K&L Gates LLP-Chicago
P.O. Box 1135
CHICAGO, IL 60690
01/22/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sandro Florin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3712036-01516 8629
EXAMINER
HOANG,TUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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):
USpatentmail@klgates.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDRO FLORIN, CHRISTOPHE SCHNEIDER,
and FRANK KRAUCHI
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/391, 165
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, PA TRICK R. SCANLON, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, dated July 15, 2016 ("Final
Act."), rejecting claims 1-20. An oral hearing was conducted on October 4,
2017, and a transcript of that hearing is included in the record ("Tr."). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Nestec S.A. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with claims 2-20
depending directly or indirectly therefrom. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. An electric beverage preparation machine comprising:
a brewing unit configured to receive a capsule containing
one or more beverage ingredients and guide an incoming flow
of liquid through the one or more beverage ingredients to a
beverage outlet;
a pump configured to drive the liquid from a fluid
connector to the brewing unit;
a heating member upstream of the brewing unit and
configured to heat the liquid;
a control unit configured to control the heating member
and the pump;
a first beverage user-selector for requesting a first
beverage, the first beverage user-selector connected to the
control unit in an arrangement in which the control unit receives
instructions from a user via the first beverage user-selector;
the electric beverage preparation machine operates in an
operative mode in which the electric beverage preparation
machine is ready to use the pump and the heating member to
process the one or more beverage ingredients and dispense a
resulting beverage;
the electric beverage preparation machine operates in a
start-up mode in which the electric beverage preparation
machine is not ready to process the one or more beverage
ingredients and is brought into the operative mode from (i) a
standby mode having lower electric consumption than the
operative mode or (ii) an electrically switched off state; and
the control unit is arranged to store in the start-up mode a
first beverage request made via the first beverage user-selector
while the electric beverage preparation machine is in the start-
up mode, the first beverage request identifying the first
2
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
beverage as a requested beverage, and the control unit is
configured to automatically prepare the requested beverage at
entry of the electric beverage preparation machine into the
operative mode after leaving the start-up mode.
Appeal Br. 19, Claims App.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Gutwein
Beavis
Deuber
US 6,759,072 Bl
US 2009/0159612 Al
US 2010/0282088 Al
REJECTIONS
July 6, 2004
June 25, 2009
Nov. 11, 2010
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
I. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Deuber and Beavis.
II. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Deuber, Beavis, and Gutwein.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Deuber discloses an electric beverage
preparation machine having many of the limitations of claim 1, including the
control unit (which the Examiner determines is met by Deuber's control
circuit 13). Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Deuber's beverage
preparation machine operates in an operative mode (i.e., the "ready mode"
described in ,r,r 5, 9, and 52 of Deuber) and a start-up mode (i.e., the
"standby mode" described in the Abstract of Deuber). Id. at 3--4.
3
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
The Examiner, however, concedes that Deuber' s control circuit 13 is
not "arranged to store in the start-up mode a first beverage request made via
the first beverage user-selector while the electric beverage preparation
machine is in the start-up mode" and is not "configured to automatically
prepare the requested beverage at entry of the electric beverage preparation
machine into the operative mode after leaving the start-up mode," as
required by claim 1. Id. at 4.
The Examiner turns to Beavis to address this deficiency of Deuber. In
particular, the Examiner finds Beavis discloses user interface subsystem 22
that includes touch screen interface 500 connected to control logic
subsystem 14. Id. at 4--5 (citing Beavis, ,r 84, Figs. 1, 17). The Examiner
also finds Beavis discloses that user interface subsystem 22 allows a user to
select various options, such as drink size and drink type, for a beverage, and
that this disclosure reads on "selection during start-up mode because the
interface 500 being active means that the device is electrically powered up."
Id. at 5 (citing Beavis, ,r,r 167, 168). Next, the Examiner finds that Beavis'
disclosure in paragraph 172 reads on "automatic preparation in the operative
mode because the control logic retrieves appropriate data and provides
control signals to prepare beverage 28." Id.
The Examiner then concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to utilize in
the disclosure of Deuber for a device for brewing a beverage,
the user interface subsystem and the control logic subsystem of
Beavis to provide an interactive control over the drink type and
drink size (FIG. 17 of Beavis).
Id. at 14.
4
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
Appellants argue that Beavis does not disclose making and storing a
beverage selection while the machine is in the start-up mode, which claim 1
defines as a mode in which "the machine is not ready to process the one or
more beverage ingredients and is brought into the operative mode from (i) a
standby mode having lower electric consumption than the operative mode or
(ii) an electrically switched off state." Appeal Br. 8. We find Appellants'
arguments persuasive.
Beavis discloses a processing system that includes storage subsystem
12, control logic subsystem 14, and user interface sub-system 22. Beavis,
,r 84, Fig. 1. User interface sub-system 22 includes touch screen interface
500 that allows user 26 to select various beverage options, such as drink size
and drink type. Id. at ,r,r 167, 168, Fig. 17. The Examiner errs, however, in
finding that this selection in Beavis is made during a start-up mode "because
the interface 500 being active means that the device is electrically powered
up." See Final Act. 5. The start-up mode of claim 1 requires more than
merely being electrically powered up. Namely, claim 1 requires that the
electric beverage preparation machine, when in the start-up mode, "is not
ready to process the one or more beverage ingredients and is brought into the
operative mode from (i) a standby mode having lower electric consumption
than the operative mode or (ii) an electrically switched off state." The
Examiner does not explain adequately how Beavis discloses that its device is
not ready to process beverage ingredients at any time while it is electrically
powered up. The Examiner also does not explain adequately where Beavis
discloses that the beverage selection is made while the device is transitioning
into an operative mode from a standby mode or an off state.
5
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
Furthermore, the Examiner does not establish that Beavis stores the
selection, as required by claim 1. As noted above, the Examiner finds that
the control logic of Beavis "retrieves appropriate data" to prepare the
beverage. Id. at 5 (citing Beavis, ,r 172). We disagree, however, that the
"appropriate data" retrieved by the control logic is the selection made by the
user. Rather, Beavis discloses that, after making a beverage selection, the
user selects "GO!" button 510, which causes user interface subsystem 22 to
provide appropriate data signals to control logic subsystem 14. Beavis,
,r 172. Once these data signals are received, "control logic subsystem 14
may retrieve the appropriate data from storage subsystem 12 and may
provide the appropriate control signals ... , which may be processed ... to
prepare beverage 28." Id. The received data signals, which represent the
user's selection, are not the same as the appropriate data retrieved from
storage subsystem 12. Instead, the retrieved appropriate data are recipes for
creating the requested beverage. Id. at ,r 86 ("Control logic subsystem 14
may process these data signals and may retrieve (via data bus 34) one or
more recipes chosen from a plurality of recipes 36 maintained on storage
subsystem 12. The term 'recipe' refer[ s] to instructions for
processing/creating the requested product."). Thus, Beavis does not disclose
that the user's selection, or the data signals that represent the user's
selection, are stored at any time, let alone during a start-up mode.
In addition, the Examiner's finding that Beavis' device is configured
to automatically prepare the requested beverage in the operative mode
"because the control logic retrieves appropriate data and provides control
signals to prepare beverage 28" (see Final Act. 5) is insufficient with respect
to claim 1. Claim 1 requires the control unit be configured to automatically
6
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
prepare the requested beverage at entry of the electric beverage preparation
machine into the operative mode after leaving the start-up mode. The
Examiner finds that Beavis teaches automatically preparing the beverage in
the operative mode only, and does not establish that Beavis discloses
automatically preparing the beverage at entry of the device into the operative
mode.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner responds to certain
arguments made by Appellants by noting that features relied on by
Appellants are not recited in the rejected claims. Ans. 15-16. Although
some of Appellants' arguments paraphrase the claim language, instead of
quoting it verbatim (see e.g., Appeal Br. 8), we disagree that these
arguments rely on limitations that are not found in the claims.
For the above reasons, we determine the Examiner's obviousness
analysis is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 5-20
depending therefrom, as obvious over Deuber and Beavis.
Rejection II
The Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as obvious over Deuber, Beavis,
and Gutwein relies on the same erroneous findings and conclusions, noted
above, regarding independent claim 1. Gutwein, which the Examiner relies
on as disclosing receiving multiple inputs from a user (Final Act. 14), does
not cure these deficiencies. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 4 for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-006850
Application 13/3 91, 165
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8