Ex Parte Hoffman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

12734737 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/734,737 05/20/2010
11850 7590 08/01/2018
DENTONS US LLP (Sophir-All Others)
ATTN: Eric Sophir
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steve Hoffman
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.
KTOOOl-US 8906
EXAMINER
CHOU,JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
eric.sophir@dentons.com
SG.Sophir.All0thers@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE HOFFMAN
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 16-21. Claims 7, 8, and 14 have been
cancelled. See Response to Office Action filed July 15, 2013. Claims 10-
13 and 15 have been withdrawn. See id. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellant, KitchenTek LLC is the real part in interest in this
appeal.
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a pressurized cooking oven. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An oven system for creating a pressurized cooking
environment comprising:
an oven enclosure having back, top, bottom and side walls,
the side, top and bottom walls having front ends defining a front
opening into the enclosure, a door hingedly attached to one of the
ends of the walls for sealing the front opening in the enclosure;
at least one heating element in the enclosure positioned on
at least an inner side of the bottom wall of the enclosure for
generating heat in the enclosure;
a locking mechanism attached to enclosure and configured
to lock the door to the enclosure so as to prevent the door from
rotating about its hinge and restrict access to the interior from the
front opening, the locking mechanism including a sealed locked
state where the locking mechanism is engaged with the door so
as to maintain the door against the front opening and prevent
rotation of the door about its hinge, an unlocked state where the
locking mechanism permits the door to rotate about its hinged
attachment so as to permit access into the oven enclosure through
the front opening, and a closed and unlocked state where the door
is maintained against the front opening and cannot rotate about
its hinge, the locking mechanism including a manually-actuated
linkage assembly for further pulling the door from the closed and
unlocked state toward the enclosure to the sealed locked state for
withstanding pressure during use,
wherein when the door is in the sealed locked state and the
heating element is on, the enclosure is substantially air tight to
create an atmosphere inside the enclosure that is above
atmospheric pressure and minimize pressure loss, and the
enclosure is sealed except for a venting system,
2
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
wherein the heating element is directly exposed to air in
the pressurized enclosure and configured to heat the air in the
enclosure in the sealed locked state having the atmospheric
pressure above O psi; and
wherein the pressurized enclosure is configured to be
heated by the heating element up to 425°F;
the venting system connected to the enclosure and in
communication therewith, the venting system configured to vent
air from inside the enclosure to control pressure in the enclosure,
the venting system including at least one vent formed in one of
the enclosure walls and communicating with the inside of the
enclosure; and
a temperature control system including at least one
temperature sensor for monitoring and controlling the
temperature within the enclosure, the control system programed
to control the temperature in the enclosure during a cooking
process by controlling the heating element for maintaining the
sensed temperature at preset levels specific to the food being
cooked, the locking mechanism inhibiting opening of the door
until the pressure within the enclosure is below a threshold level.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Skala us 4,246,955 Jan.27, 1981
Babasade us 4,558,196 Dec. 10, 1985
Swanson us 4,839,502 June 13, 1989
Delau us 4,995,313 Feb.26, 1991
Cho US 2006/0011607 Al Jan. 19,2006
Gilkerson US 2006/0032573 Al Feb. 16,2006
Fraccon US 7,208,701 B2 Apr. 24, 2007
Noman US 2008/0092754 Al Apr. 24, 2008
3
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Delau in view of Cho, Gilkerson, Swanson,
Fraccon, and Skala.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Delau in view of
Cho, Gilkerson, Swanson, Fraccon, Skala, and Noman.
Claims 9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Delau
in view of Cho, Gilkerson, Swanson, Fraccon, Skala, and Babasade.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner's base reference in rejecting claims 1 and 16 is Delau.
Final Act. 4. Delau is directed to "a steam processor capable of operating in
a convection or a pressure mode" (Delau, Abstract), and comprises a steam-
generating base 10 configured to feed two cooking chambers 14, 16. Delau,
col. 3, 11. 61---68. The Examiner concedes that Delau lacks, inter alia, "at
least one heating element in the enclosure positioned on at least an inner side
of the bottom wall of the enclosure" as required by independent claims 1 and
16. Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted). To cure this deficiency, the Examiner
cites Cho as teaching a heating element 16b "located at an inner side of the
outer bottom wall of the enclosure," and concludes it would have been
obvious to modify Delau according to Cho "to incorporate heaters thereby
increasing steam generating effects." Id. at 6 (citing Cho, ,r 9). The
Examiner further finds that "[ t ]he combination of Delau et al. and Cho et al.
would meet the claimed limitations of ... wherein the heating element is
4
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
directly exposed to air in the pressurized enclosure." Id. at 6 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant argues the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness cannot be
sustained at least2 because Cho does not teach a heating element that is
either (i) "in the enclosure positioned on at least an inner side of the bottom
wall of the enclosure" or (ii) "directly exposed to air in the pressurized
enclosure[.]" App. Br. 14--15. For the reasons below, we agree with
Appellant.
As an initial matter, we note that the Examiner's rejection does not
make clear which element(s) in Cho the Examiner regards as the "enclosure"
such that the heating element 16b meets the limitations in question vis-a-vis
the enclosure. Final Act. 6-7. Appellant's arguments as to the insufficiency
of Cho assume that the Examiner considered chamber 11 to be the
"enclosure" of Cho (App. Br. 14--15), and the Examiner's Answer does not
refute this assumption. Ans. 21. Moreover, given that claims 1 and 16
require the enclosure to be pressurized and temperature controlled, the
cooking chamber 11 of Cho would seem the only "enclosure" reasonably
regarded as such. Consequently, we evaluate Cho' s teaching of a heating
2 We note that Appellant also argues the Examiner's reliance on Fraccon
was in error, because Fraccon does not teach a pressurized enclosure
"configured to be heated by the heating element up to 425°F." Because we
conclude infra that the Examiner's reliance on Cho provides sufficient
grounds for reversal, we do not address the rejection's reliance on Fraccon.
However, the discussion of Fraccon raises a possible ambiguity in the phrase
"heated by the heating element up to 425°F." Appellant's position appears
to be that this language requires heating to at least 425°F, whereas the
Examiner finds "up to 425°F" can be met by temperatures lower than 425°F.
(Ans. 20). Appellant might, therefore, consider amending the claim(s) so as
to resolve any ambiguity.
5
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
element for heating an enclosure by analyzing element 16b in relation to
enclosure 11.
Cho' s enclosure 11 is bounded by a first case 14a and second case
14b, such that "[a] space is formed between the first case 14a and the second
case 14b, thereby thermally insulating the cooking chamber 11 from the
outside." Cho, ,r 33; Fig. 2 (bold emphasis omitted). The heating element
16b is installed within in that space:
[T]he lower heater 16b is installed on the outer lower surface of
the cooking chamber 11. That is, the lower heater 16b contacts
the outer surface of the bottom of the first case 14a. The above
structure protects the lower heater 16b from foreign substances
falling from the foods placed in the cooking chamber 11 and
transmits heat of the lower heater 16b to the inside of the
cooking chamber 11 through the bottom of the first case 14a.
Cho, ,r 34 (bold emphasis omitted).
From these portions of Cho, two things are clear. First, heating
element 16b is not "positioned on at least an inner side of the bottom wall of
the enclosure" because 16b is positioned on an outer side of the bottom wall
of the enclosure. And second, heating element 16b is not "directly exposed
to air in the pressurized enclosure" because 16b lies entirely outside of the
enclosure 11. Even if the Examiner had interpreted "the inner side of the
bottom wall" as being broad enough to include the underside of the bottom
wall of the enclosure3, 16b of Cho would still not meet the claims because in
that case, "inner side" would mean the side facing away from the enclosure,
such that 16b would not also be "directly exposed to air in the pressurized
enclosure."
3 See Ans. 21 ("Cho teaches the lower heater 16b is installed on the inner
wall as shown in figure 2.")
6
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
To the extent the Examiner considers the larger space surrounded
primarily by Cho's second case 14b to be an "enclosure," such that the
heating element 16b is in the enclosure and positioned on an inner side of
the bottom wall of that enclosure, the rejection based on the combined
teachings of references still falls short on this record. The Examiner finds
Delau's outer walls form an enclosure. Final Act. 4. As noted above,
however, claims 1 and 16 require the enclosure to be pressurized and
temperature controlled. Only Delau's cooking chamber is pressurized.
Delau col. 2, 11. 6-7 ("Preferably, the chamber is pressurized in the range of
1 Opsi.").
The enclosure in Cho most reasonably corresponding to Delau's
cooking chamber is cooking chamber 11, although it is not taught to be
pressurized. Accordingly, without any indication or findings otherwise, if
one of skill in the art were to have incorporated Cho' s heating element into
Delau, it most logically would have been incorporated outside the cooking
chamber as shown in Cho. The Examiner has not indicated Cho's heating
element would have been incorporated into Delau in a location other than
outside the cooking chamber as shown in Cho or explained why one of skill
in the art would have done so. For the reasons discussed above, a heating
element outside of Delau's cooking chamber would not be "in the enclosure
positioned on at least an inner side of the bottom wall of the enclosure" or
"directly exposed to air in the pressurized enclosure," as recited in claims 1
and 16.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to
claims 1 and 16 cannot be sustained on this record.
7
Appeal2017-008063
Application 12/734,737
The Examiner's analysis regarding dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 17-
21 do not cure the deficiencies of the rejections of claims 1 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1---6, 9,
and 16-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
8