Ex Parte Douma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

14414973 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/414,973 01/15/2015 Sipke Theo Douma
24737 7590 11/28/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P01735WOUS 3421
EXAMINER
NGUYEN,VYT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIPKE THEO DOUMA,
HENDRIK KLAAS P AAUW,
GOODWIN DIRK ZW ANENBURG,
MARTIJN VAN ZUTPHEN,
SEBASTIAAN JOHANNES NICOLAAS DUINISVELD, and
HENK JAN TEN DONKELAAR
Appeal2018-002100 1
Application 14/414,973
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002100
Application 14/414,973
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is the sole
independent claim before us:
1 A device for steaming food, comprising:
a base part; and
at least one basket adapted to be positioned above the base
part in a normal orientation of the device,
wherein the at least one basket has a bottom provided with
holes for letting through steam and a standing wall projecting
from the bottom and delimiting a space above the bottom for
receiving and containing food to be steamed,
wherein the base part comprises a steam chamber for
containing water to be converted into steam, heating means
associated with the steam chamber for heating water contained
inside the steam chamber, and a reservoir configured to contain
water to be supplied to the steam chamber, wherein the reservoir
is in fluid communication with the steam chamber through at
least one channel, wherein the channel is configured to allow for
a flow of water from the reservoir to the steam chamber while
counteracting a flow of water from the steam chamber to the
reservoir on the basis of differences in the nature of the
respective flows, wherein the base part further comprises a
separation tube for defining the steam chamber inside the
reservoir, and a drip tray for receiving fluid from the at least one
basket during operation of the device and for closing an open top
side of the reservoir, wherein the separation tube contacts a
bottom of the reservoir with a first free end in response to the
separation tube being placed in the base part, wherein the
separation tube is an integral part of the drip tray at a second
end of the separation tube and supports the drip tray on the
bottom of the reservoir in response to the separation tube and the
drip tray being placed in the base part, and wherein the first free
end of the separation tube is provided with a recess for forming
the channel between the reservoir and the steam chamber,
wherein the channel is delimited by (i) walls and a bottom of the
recess of the first free end of the separation tube and (ii) a part of
2
Appeal2018-002100
Application 14/414,973
the bottom of the reservoir which is covered by first free end of
the separation tube.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pretre (US 6,474,222 Bl; iss. Nov. 5, 2002), Montagnino et al.
(US 5,649,476; iss. July 22, 1997, hereinafter "Montagnino"), and Choi
(US 7,208,702 B2; iss. Apr. 24, 2007).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pretre, Montagnino, Choi, and Su (US 5,458,050; iss. Oct. 17, 1995).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pretre, Montagnino, Choi, Su, and Lewis et al. (US 2010/0186600 Al; pub.
July 29, 2010, hereinafter "Lewis").
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pretre, Montagnino, Choi, and Nopanen et al.
(US 5,653,161; iss. Aug. 5, 1997, hereinafter "Nopanen").
OPINION
Regarding the limitation emphasized above, the Specification
provides some examples demonstrating the intended meaning of the term
"integral" in this particular context. For example, the Specification states, "it
is possible for the separation tube [25] to be an integral part of the drip tray,
so that the problems associated with having a separate part are solved"
(Spec. 8:24--26) and "[p]referably, the separation tube 10 is an integral part
of the drip tray 3, but that does not alter the fact that it is also possible for the
separation tube 10 to be designed such as to be attachable to and detachable
from the drip tray 3, or even to be a separate part" (Spec. 18:17-19).
3
Appeal2018-002100
Application 14/414,973
Pretre:
In order to satisfy this limitation the Examiner determined, regarding
the separation tube ( 43)[2] is an integral part (seen in Fig. 4,
wherein the steam production device 43 is construed as an
integral part of the recovery receptacle 4 7 because when the
recovery receptacle 4 7 is placed on top of the heating base
42, and the recovery receptacle 4 7 is directly connecting
with the steam production device 43 as seen in Fig. 4) of the
drip tray (47) at a second end (see annotated Fig. 4 of Pretre
below) of the separation tube and supports the drip tray (47)
on the bottom of the reservoir ( 44) in response to the
separation tube (43) and the drip tray (47) being placed in
the base part (42), and (ii) a part of the bottom (see
annotated Fig. 4 of Pretre below) of the reservoir (44)
which is covered by first free end (seen in Fig. 4) of the
separation tube ( 43).
Ans. 6-7 ( citing Figure 4 of Pretre ).
Appellants, on the other hand, contend that support for the drip tray in
Pretre's device is not derived from the structure regarded by the Examiner as
the recited "separation tube," but from the outer walls of cold water
reservoir. Reply. Br. 6-7 (isolating the relevant elements and annotating
Figure 4 of Pretre. ).
Both Appellants and the Examiner provide feasible explanations for
how Pretre's recovery receptacle 47 or "drip tray" is supported. Ultimately,
as Pretre does not provide any specific discussion on the matter, the
relationship between the structures of Pretre interpreted as the recited
2 Reference numeral 43 in Pretre actually refers to the entire steam
production device which includes a cold-water reservoir 44 and supply
reservoir 45. Based on the Examiner's discussion and annotated figures is it
apparent that it is the tube ( without a reference character in Pretre) that
forms walls separating cold-water reservoir 44 from supply reservoir 45 that
the Examiner regards as the recited "separation tube."
4
Appeal2018-002100
Application 14/414,973
"separation tube" and "drip tray" cannot be determined based on the Figures
alone or any other evidence of record. Knowing the nature of this
relationship is essential to determining whether or not the Examiner
correctly determined that Pretre' s structure satisfies the limitation
emphasized above. "[L ]egal determinations of obviousness, as with such
determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere
speculation or conjecture." Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 464 F.3d
1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). "[T]he precise language of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that
'(a) person shall be entitled to a patent unless,' concerning novelty and
unobviousness,[] clearly places a burden of proof on the Patent Office which
requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an application
under sections 102 and 103." In re Warner 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA
1967). "The familiar rule that any doubt which exists should be resolved in
favor of the applicant is here applicable." In re Kirschbraun, 44 F.2d 675,
677 (CCPA 1930). Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections cannot be
sustained on the basis set forth by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
5