Ex Parte Högnason et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13266287 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/266,287
22913 7590
Workman Nydegger
60 East South Temple
Suite 1000
10/26/2011
06/29/2018
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Albert Hognason
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.
19802.2 2046
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
Docketing@wnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT HOGNASON and JOHANN JONASSON
Appeal2017-010834
Application 13/266,287
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Albert Hognason and Johann Jonasson ("Appellants") 1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
32--40, 42, 44, 45, 51, and 52. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 3X TECHNOLOGY is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-31, 41, 43, 46, and 50 have been canceled and claims 47--49 have
been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary);
Appeal Br. 27, 29-32 (Claims App.).
Appeal2017-010834
Application 13/266,287
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 32, the only independent claim, is reproduced below:
32. An apparatus for thawing frozen food products,
compnsmg:
a tank having first and second ends, and a heating liquid
located therein for thawing the food products, the tank defining
a plurality of sections along a length of the tank;
a spiral-shaped blade having a rotational axis and located
inside the tank for conveying the food products through the
plurality of sections in a direction from the first end of the tank
toward the second end of the tank along the length of the tank;
a temperature controlling system configured to
independently control the temperature of the heating liquid in
each of the plurality of sections of the tank; and
a plurality of air supply sources arranged along the length
of the tank, the plurality of air supply sources configured to pump
air into the heating liquid,
wherein the temperature controlling system includes a
plurality of heat supplying units arranged along the length of the
tank, each of the plurality of sections including at least one of the
heat supplying units,
wherein each of the heat supplying units is arranged along
a bottom portion of the tank and each of the heat supplying units
is configured to upwardly inject a heating agent into the heating
liquid toward a surface level of the heating liquid in the tank at
an angle generally perpendicular to the surface level of the
heating liquid to provide a substantially equally distributed and
uniform temperature in the heating liquid along the length of the
tank, each of the heat supplying units having an upwardly
extending nozzle extending into the tank from a common heat
supplying pipe connected to a heat supplying liquid source,
wherein the temperature of the heating agent injected into
the heating liquid is greater than the temperature of the heating
liquid,
wherein the air supply sources are different from the heat
supplying units, each of the plurality of sections including at least
one of the air supply units, each of the air supply sources having
an air supply nozzle extending upwardly into the bottom portion
2
Appeal2017-010834
Application 13/266,287
of the tank and oriented to provide an air flow generally
perpendicular to and toward the surface level of the heating
liquid in the tank,
wherein pumping air into the heating liquid creates air
bubbles in the heating liquid for providing a buoyant force to
food products sunken at the bottom of the tank.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 32-35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 51, and 52 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Morris (US 7,281,384 B2, issued
Oct. 16, 2007).
2) Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris and Pappas (US 3,097,501, issued July 16, 1963).
3) Claims 36 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morris and Schorsch (US 4,033,142, issued July 5,
1977).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Morris discloses each of the limitations of
claim 32 including a plurality of upwardly extending nozzles 70 that are
arranged along a bottom portion of the tank 36 and are configured to
upwardly inject a heating agent into the heating liquid at an angle generally
perpendicular to the surface level of the heating liquid. See Final Act 3--4.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Morris' nozzles 70 are "arranged at a
(right) side portion of the tank 36 ... [and] are laterally or horizontally
extending ... at an angle nearly parallel to the surface level of the liquid
68." Appeal Br. 16-17 (citing Morris Fig. 5) (emphasis omitted).
3
Appeal2017-010834
Application 13/266,287
In response, the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 4 of
Morris and asserts that "[a]nnotated Fig[ure] 4 ... shows nozzles 70 at the
bottom of the tank and generally perpendicular to the tank ( and liquid inside
the tank)." Ans. 4.
Appellants reply that as pointed out on page 4 of the Appeal Brief,
Figure 4 of Morris is a plan view, and that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that a plan view is "a view of an object as seen from
vertically above." Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner's
annotated Figure 4 misrepresents the configuration of Morris, and that
Morris does not anticipate claim 32. See Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive because one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that Morris' Figure 4 is seen from above. 3 See
Morris, 7:38-39. Thus, we must look to other portions of the disclosure of
Morris to ascertain the configuration of nozzles 70 of Morris. We agree
with Appellants that Figure 5 of Morris shows nozzles 70 at a side of the
tank and shows nozzles 70 "laterally or horizontally extending." Appeal Br.
16. Further, the disclosure of Morris supports Appellants' arguments
because Morris discloses that nozzles 70 "communicate through the
semi cylindrical side wall 40 of the tank" and "inject water in streams 84
laterally through the tank" ( emphasis in original omitted and emphasis
added), parallel to the surface level 68 of the water. Morris, 8:64---65 and
9:5---6; Fig. 5; see also Reply Br. 5. Based on the depiction of nozzles 70 in
Figure 5 of Morris and the noted disclosure in columns 8 and 9, we
determine that the Examiner's finding that Morris discloses the limitations in
3 An ordinary and customary meaning of "plan" is "a top or horizontal view
of an object." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (I Ph Ed. 2005).
4
Appeal2017-010834
Application 13/266,287
claim 32 that each nozzle 70 of Morris is "an upwardly extending nozzle"
that is "configured to upwardly inject a heating agent ... at an angle
generally perpendicular to the surface level of the heating liquid" is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We, therefore, do not sustain
the rejection of claim 32 and claims 33-35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 51, and 52
depending from claim 32, as anticipated by Morris.
Rejections 2-3
Claims 36, 39, and 45 depend directly or indirectly from claim 32.
Appeal Br. 28-30 (Claims App.). The Examiner's use of the disclosures of
Pappas and Schorsch in the rejection of claims 36, 39, and 45 does not
remedy the deficiencies of Morris as discussed supra. See Final Act. 8-9.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim
32, we also do not sustain Rejections 2 and 3.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 32--40, 42, 44, 45, 51, and
52 is reversed.
REVERSED
5