Ex Parte Hansen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13223901 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/223,901 09/01/2011
22511 7590 05/05/2016
OSHA LIANG L.L.P.
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Asbjorn Hansen SR.
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.
17239/025001 8320
EXAMINER
RASHID, FAZLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASBJORN RUDOLF HANSEN, SR.
Appeal2014-007906
Application 13/223,901 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Hansen.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 3
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Marienlyst Eiendom AS. Br.
2.
2 Hansen, Sr., US 6,341,887 Bl, issued Jan. 29, 2002 (hereinafter "Hansen").
3 Our decision refers to the Appellant's Specification filed Dec. 7, 2011 (Spec.),
the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 1, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed
May 9, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed July 9, 2014 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2014-007906
Application 13/223,901
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of ensuring continuous and
hygienic operation of a mixing apparatus (see, e.g., claim 1 ). Appellant discloses
that because a mixing chamber of a mixing apparatus is made in one closed piece,
maintenance and cleaning of the mixing chamber is cumbersome and cannot be
performed efficiently. Spec. p. 1, 11. 27-29. In view of this, there is a need for an
improved method to ensure a continuous and hygienic production of frozen
desserts. Spec. p. 2, 11. 1-2 and 10-11.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 4 The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method for ensuring continuous and hygienic operation of a
mixing apparatus for mixing frozen desserts in a mixing chamber
formed by a top chamber and a funnel brought together, wherein a
spindle with a driving portion is accommodated through said top
chamber, said method comprising:
checking whether a predetermined time has passed since a last
rinsing or washing operation has been performed;
disabling mixing operation and notifYing that a rinsing and/or
washing operation is required if the predetermined time has passed;
enabling mixing operation if the predetermined time has not
passed;
initiating a rinsing process when selected;
initiating a washing process when selected, and
performing a mixing operation of frozen desserts when enabled
and selected.
4 Appeal Br. 13.
2
Appeal2014-007906
Application 13/223,901
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Hansen discloses a method of ensuring continuous and
hygienic operation of a mixing apparatus for mixing frozen desserts. Ans. 2.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Hansen discloses checking whether a
predetermined time has passed since a last rinsing or washing operation was
performed, disabling the mixing operation and notifying that a rinsing and/or
washing operation is required if the predetermined time has passed, initiating a
rinse or wash process when selected, and performing mixing. Ans. 2-3.
Appellant argues Hansen does not disclose "checking whether a
predetermined time has passed since a last rinsing or washing operation has been
performed," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant contends
the predetermined intervals of Hansen are independent of whether a rinsing or
washing operation was previously performed and washing automatically occurs in
Hansen without checking whether a predetermined time has lapsed. Appeal Br. 6-
7; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant also argues that the predetermined time period for
Hansen's washing operation (e.g., one hour), "begins at the point that the previous
heated water wash is initiated, but before the heated water wash has been
performed."5 Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Hansen discloses an ice cream
mixing apparatus having a control system that includes a timer for initiating water
spraying on a timed basis. Hansen col. 1, 11. 56-59 and col. 2, 11. 51-53. The
automatic activation of mixer components can be based on input from sensors or
the timer and include the sequencing of functions. Hansen col. 4, 11. 42-50.
5 We interpret the phrase "since a last rinsing or washing operation has been
performed" to include initiation or the start of the washing operation.
3
Appeal2014-007906
Application 13/223,901
Hansen further discloses a heated wash is initiated by the timer "[a]t predetermined
intervals, typically 1 hour." Hansen col. 6, 11. 4--7.
Initiation of the heated wash at a predetermined interval causes the timer to
determine or check whether a predetermined time, such as one hour, has occurred
since the previous wash has been performed, as stated by the Examiner. Ans. 5. In
other words, since a washing operation automatically occurs at a predetermined
time (e.g., one hour), checking for the passage of that predetermined time, via the
circuitry operating the timer, is necessarily checking whether a predetermined time
has passed since a last washing operation has been performed. Therefore, the
disclosure of Hansen supports the Examiner's finding that Hansen discloses
"checking whether a predetermined time has passed since a last rinsing or washing
operation has been performed," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant further asserts Hansen does not disclose "disabling mixing
operation and notifying that a rinsing and/or washing operation is required if the
predetermined time has passed" and "enabling mixing operation if the
predetermined time has not passed," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
contends Hansen discloses disabling mixing and/or washing operations while other
operations are running but this is based on whether other operations are running
and not whether a predetermined time has lapsed. Appeal Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 6-7.
Appellant further argues Hansen does not disclose or suggest a notification that a
rinsing and/ or washing operation is required. Appeal Br. 10-11.
As discussed above and found by the Examiner, 6 Hansen discloses washing
a mixing apparatus at predetermined intervals. Hansen discloses automatic
activation, via its control unit, of mixer components based on input from sensors or
the timer. Hansen col. 4, 11. 42-50. Thus, Hansen's control unit receives a
6 Ans. 6.
4
Appeal2014-007906
Application 13/223,901
notification from the timer that the predetermined interval, such as one hour, has
passed and the control unit then initiates a wash operation. The language of claim
1 does not distinguish a notification from the operations of the electronic control
unit of Hansen, including automation of a wash by the control unit based upon
input from the timer that a period of time has passed.
Further, Hansen discloses logical checks to ensure neither mixing nor
washing is initiated while the other is ongoing. Hansen col. 6, 11. 49-54.
Therefore, when washing is initiated, the control unit disables mixing from
occurring and this is based on the input from the timer that the predetermined
interval has passed. Alternatively, when the control unit has not received input
from the timer that the predetermined interval has lapsed, the control unit would
prevent initiation of washing and allow mixing to occur. As a result, the disclosure
of Hansen supports the Examiner's findings that Hansen discloses disabling
mixing operation and notifying that a rinsing and/or washing operation is required
if the predetermined time has passed" and "enabling mixing operation if the
predetermined time has not passed," as recited in claim 1.
In addition, Appellant argues Hansen does not disclose "performing a
mixing operation of frozen desserts when enabled and selected," as recited in claim
1. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends Hansen discloses rotating an auger to mix
ice cream and flavor additives but Hansen's disclosure of enabling/disabling of
operations is based on whether other operations are running while Appellant's
invention enables or disables an operation based upon whether or not a
predetermined time has passed. Appeal Br. 11 and Reply Br. 7-8. These
arguments are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Hansen discloses preventing
initiation of mixing or washing when the other is ongoing. When the control unit
of Hansen has not received an input from the timer that the predetermined interval
5
Appeal2014-007906
Application 13/223,901
has lapsed, mixing would be enabled and washing would be prevented. As
conceded by Appellant, 7 Hansen discloses rotating an auger to mix ice cream and
flavor additives. Hansen col. 4, 11. 53---62. Therefore, Hansen supports the
Examiner's finding that Hansen discloses "performing a mixing operation of
frozen desserts when enabled and selected," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant does not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claims 2--4. Appeal Br. 11. Therefore, for the reasons set forth
above, and for those expressed in the Examiner's Answer, the § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1--4 over Hansen is sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ).
AFFIRMED
7 Appeal Br. 11.
6