Anders Joel. Bjork et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2019

13883774 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2019)

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.
13/883,774 05/07/2013 Anders Joel Bjork 2010P01155WOUS 5874
24737 7590 08/27/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
CHEN, KUANGYUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDERS JOEL BJORK, BERNHARD SCHRATTER,
and CHRISTIAN THOMAS SCHMIED
____________

Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a food steamer. Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A food steamer comprising:
a food preparation chamber including a steam inlet
formed in a lower part,
a steam generator communicating with the food
preparation chamber by a steam passageway extending between
the steam generator and the food preparation chamber so that
steam is able to flow from the steam generator to the food
preparation chamber, the steam generator comprising a water
supply means and a boiler, wherein the water supply means is
configured to feed water to the boiler for heating the water and
converting the water to steam, and
a contaminant prevention means disposed along the steam
passageway and configured to prevent the ingress of
contaminants from the food preparation chamber into the steam
generator,
wherein the contamination prevention means comprises
a resilient plate valve acting as a valve member comprised
of a deformable and resilient circular rubber plate fixedly
mounted at its centre and disposed at an upper end of a
housing having a bore formed through it forming part of the
steam passageway, the valve member having a higher density
than water to prevent the valve member from moving into an
open position when the contamination means is immersed in
water,
the housing acting as a valve seat and the resilient plate
valve disposed at an upper end of the bore acting as a valve
member, the bore being located on a circumferentially
extending ridge of the housing acting as said valve seat to
receive the valve member, the bore forming part of the steam
passageway, the housing further comprising a stop spaced
apart from and above the valve seat to limit movement of the
valve member in the bore, the housing further comprising an
integrated handle extending from an outer surface of the
housing, and
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
3
wherein the contamination prevention means is configured
to open gradually dependent on the pressure of the steam,
such that steam passes through the contamination prevention
means at a high velocity when the contamination prevention
means is in an open position, wherein the high velocity steam
urges fluids and/or solids away from the contamination
prevention means and prevents the fluids and/or solids from
passing into the steam generator,
wherein in an operating mode, as steam passes through the
contamination prevention means at a high velocity
contamination prevention means the circular rubber plate
portion of the valve member is resiliently deformed from its
closed position to an open position, and
wherein in a non-operating mode, the contamination
prevention means is in a closed position and forms a seal so
that any fluids or solids disposed in the food preparation
chamber cannot pass into the steam generator,
wherein the housing is removably mountable to the steam
passageway to form part of the steam passageway which
extends between the steam generator and the food
preparation chamber.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–10 and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Baker
Baumgarten
Burgeson
Ou
US 3,559,427
US 6,014,986
US 2009/0031608 Al
CN 201243941 Y
Feb. 2, 1971
Jan. 18, 2000
Feb. 5, 2009
May 27, 2009
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
4
2. Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ou, Baker, and Baumgarten.
3. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ou, Baker, Baumgarten, and Burgeson.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ou and Baumgarten.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner considers a plethora of various
terms of claim 1 to be recited in a manner that renders the claim indefinite,
including:
A. the contamination prevention means – as lacking antecedent
basis;
B. the contamination means – as lacking antecedent basis;
C. and/or – as ambiguous as to whether claims one or both
elements; and
D. “the contamination prevention means at a high velocity
contamination prevention means the circular rubber plate
portion” – as having an uncertain meaning.
Final Action 3–4.
With respect to claim 12, the Examiner takes the position that the
meaning of “a boiler” is unclear as to whether the recited boiler is the same
boiler that is recited in claim 1. Id. at 5.
With respect to claim 14, the Examiner observes that “the
contamination means” lacks antecedent basis. Id. Claim 14 also recites “a
housing . . . acting as a valve seat.” Claims App. claim 14. Subsequently,
claim 14 recites “said valve seat” and “the valve seat.” Id. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
5
determines that both “said valve seat” and “the valve seat” lack antecedent
basis. Id.
The remaining claims are rejected based on the dependency from a
rejection claim. Id.
Appellant does not challenge or otherwise traverse the Examiner’s
Section 112 indefiniteness rejection in the Appeal Brief. See generally
Appeal Brief. Under the circumstances, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s Section 112 rejections of all pending claims. MANUAL OF
PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. Nov. 2015 (“If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s
brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the
Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew
the rejection in the examiner’s answer”); see also In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the appellant had waived the right to contest a
rejection by not presenting arguments on appeal to the Board); Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the applicant can waive
appeal of a ground of rejection”).

Unpatentability of Claims 1–10
over Ou, Baker, and Baumgarten
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Ou discloses the invention substantially as
claimed except for: (1) the water supply means feeding water to the boiler;
and (2) the deformable, resilient valve element. Final Action 6–9. The
Examiner relies on Baker as disclosing the water supply means limitation.
Id. at 9. The Examiner relies on Baumgarten as disclosing the resilient valve
element. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
6
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ou
to feed water to the boiler and to use a deformable, resilient plate valve. Id.
at 9–10. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have done this to produce steam quickly and experience fewer
breakdowns while using inexpensive parts. Id. at 10.
Appellants argue that the proposed combination lacks a number of
claim elements including, without limitation, a handle that is integrated into
a housing that acts as a valve seat for the resilient plate valve. Appeal
Br. 19. In response, the Examiner states that Ou discloses a housing at
elements 12 and 13 that comprises an integrated handle extending from the
housing surrounding exhaust pipe 12. Ans. 11; see also Final Act. 7. The
Examiner does not provide an annotated figure or a detailed description that
clearly identifies the structure that the Examiner finds corresponds to the
handle. “The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly
explained.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2).
We have reviewed Ou Figure 2 and it is neither apparent nor clearly
explained by the Examiner what structure is integrated with elements 12
and/or 13 that can be reasonably construed as a “handle.” See Ou Fig. 2.
This deficiency cannot be overcome merely by the Examiner making an off-
hand reference to the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for
construing claims during examination. Ans. 11, citing In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under such standard,
claim terms are still given their ordinary and customary meaning as would
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). During the prosecution, the PTO is required to consult the
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
7
specification to determine the permissible scope of the claim. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Constructions that are unreasonably
broad and do not reasonably reflect the plan language and disclosure do not
pass muster. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc. v 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
(Fed. Cir. 2015). In the instant case, interpreting the housing/valve
seat/handle element of claim 1 broad enough to encompass the structure
depicted in Figure 2 of Ou is, in our opinion, not reasonable.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not articulated a sufficient reason
supported by rational underpinnings demonstrating that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would combine the teachings of Ou with Baumgarten and
Baker to achieve the claimed invention. Ou is directed to a combination
pressure cooker and food steamer. Ou, Abstract. Unlike the present
invention, that has a dedicated steam generator that is desired to remain free
from contaminants, the structure in Ou that the Examiner identifies as
corresponding to Appellants’ steam generator is, itself, also a food
preparation chamber. Id. This raises issues of preventing food
contamination from the pressure cooker reaching the steamer chamber and
vice versa. In the Answer, the Examiner relies on certain language from
paragraph 16 of Ou – “containing slag by the bottom live without overflow
from the wells” – to support a finding that Ou’s valve is configured to
prevent food contamination flowing from the steam chamber to the pressure
cooker chamber. Ans. 10. It is unclear to us whether such language, which
has been translated from Chinese, is referring to contaminant flow from the
steamer to the pressure chamber as opposed to the opposite direction.
Whatever the evidentiary value of this ambiguous phrase in the translation, it
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
8
is insufficient to support the Examiner’s findings of fact by a preponderance
of the evidence.
We are, moreover, not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would look to the teachings of Baker to add a water supply means to
Ou’s pressure cooker. It makes more sense to us that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would add water to Ou between cooking and cleaning cycles
when the lid is removed from the pressure cooker and it is not being
operated at boiling temperatures.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and
that the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is not well-founded.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claim 1.
Claims 20–10
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims
App. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for
essentially the same reasons expressed above in connection with claim 1, we
do not sustain the Examiner unpatentability rejection of claims 2–10 over
Ou, Baumgarten, and Baker.
Unpatentability of Claims 12 and 13
over Ou, Baker, Baumgarten, and Burgeson
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims
App. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1, which infirmity is
not cured any additional findings of fact based on the Burgeson reference.
Appeal 2019-000037
Application 13/883,774
9
Final Action 11–12. Thus, for essentially the same reasons expressed above
in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner unpatentability
rejection of claims 12 and 13 over Ou, Baumgarten, Baker, and Burgeson.
Unpatentability of Claim 14
over Ou and Baumgarten
Claim 14 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 relies on
erroneous findings of fact that we previously identified in connection with
the rejection of claim 1. Final Action 11–14. Thus, for essentially the same
reasons expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the
Examiner unpatentability rejection of claim 14 over Ou and Baumgarten.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10 and 12–13 under
Section 112 as indefinite is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10 and 12–13 under
Section 103 obvious is REVERSED.
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