Ex Parte Zakowski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 26, 201713372819 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/372,819 02/14/2012 Joseph W. Zakowski 5264-0241-1 5016 13075 7590 10/30/2017 Conair Corporation - Grogan, Tuccillo & Vanderleeden, LLP 1350 Main Street, 5th Floor Springfield, MA 01103 EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUONG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2017 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): Lawrence_Cruz @ conair.com stefani_pavlicic @ conair.com docket @ gtv-ip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH W. ZAKOWSKI, BARBARA L. SCHNABEL, and MARIA CARUSO Appeal 2016-0050761 Application 13/372,8192 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1, 4—9, and 11—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 30, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 12, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 12, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 1, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Conair Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005076 Application 13/372,819 BACKGROUND The Specification “relates generally to cooking appliances and, more particularly, to counter-top cooking appliances for preparing food products by use of chopping, mixing, cutting and application of heat or steam.” Spec 12. CLAIMS Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A cooking appliance, comprising: a base; a container engageable with said base and configured to receive one or more food ingredients; a blade assembly rotatably mounted in said container; and a lid engageable with said container, said lid including a floor and peripheral sidewalls defining a chamber configured to hold a volume of liquid in spaced relation to said container, a heating element positioned below said chamber for heating said liquid within said chamber to produce steam, and at least one channel formed in said lid, said at least one channel extending from an upper portion of said chamber to said container and providing a flow passageway between said chamber to said container for directing said steam from said chamber to said container; wherein said lid including said chamber and said heating element is positioned directly above said container. 2 Appeal 2016-005076 Application 13/372,819 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4—6, 9, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pryor3 in view of Takeyama.4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pryor in view of Takeyama and Li.5 DISCUSSION With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Pryor substantially discloses a device as claimed except that Pryor does not disclose a heating element and channel as part of the lid. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Pryor Figs. 9— 16A). The Examiner finds that Takeyama discloses a heating element positioned below a chamber for heating liquid and including a channel formed in a lid to provide for the passage of steam from the chamber to a container. Final Act. 3 (citing Takeyama Fig. 1). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include a heating element and channel, as required by claim 1, in Pryor’s device as taught by Takeyama “in order to produce steam to the container.” Final Act. 3^4. We are persuaded of reversible error because the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the proposed combination. See Appeal Br. 8—12. The Examiner states only that the reason for modifying Pryor in view of Takeyama is to produce steam to the container, which we find lacks the required rational underpinnings to support the Examiner’s conclusion, as discussed below. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere 3 Pryor et al., US 2008/0135654 Al, pub. June 12, 2008. 4 Takeyama et al., US 5,074,201, iss. Dec. 24, 1991. 5 Li, US 6,629,492 Bl, iss. Oct. 7, 2003. 3 Appeal 2016-005076 Application 13/372,819 conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). As noted, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Pryor’s two prong food pusher 242 to include a heating element and passageway to allow steam produced in food pusher prong 242a to enter Pryor’s container, bowl 78. Final Act. 2-4. However, the Examiner provides no explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Pryor’s food pusher in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention beyond the conclusory statement “to provide steam to the container.” Although the modified device may allow steam to pass through to the container, this alone does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify Pryor in this manner. The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument in this regard by stating, “Pryor and Takeyama are related as the same technical field.” Ans. 4. But, the Examiner’s conclusory assertions that the art is in the same field and that the modification would “produce steam to the container” do not provide a reason why one of ordinary skill would have modified Pryor in the manner proposed based on the teachings of Takeyama. Further, any reason for the combination is not readily apparent to us from the cited portions of the art because, for example, substantial modifications to Pryor’s design would be required by such a combination in order to allow Pryor’s food pusher 242 to be used as intended while also providing for the functionality the proposed modification seeks to add. See Appeal Br. 12. Simply put, the Examiner has not provided any reason to support the 4 Appeal 2016-005076 Application 13/372,819 conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Pryor as proposed. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 9, for which the Examiner relies on the same erroneous reasoning. We also do not sustain the rejections of the dependent claims because the analysis provided by the Examiner for these claims does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claims. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 4—9, and 11—15 for the reasons provided herein. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation