Ex Parte LAFFI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

14768841 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/768,841 08/19/2015 NICOLA LAFFI
24737 7590 10/24/2018
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.
2013P00696WOUS 2807
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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 NICOLA LAPPI
Appeal2018-007233 1
Application 14/768,841 2
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our Decision references Appellant's Specification filed August 19, 2015
("Spec."), Appeal Brief filed November 28, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and Reply
Brief filed July 6, 2018 ("Reply Br."), as well as the Examiner's Answer
mailed May 10, 2018 ("Ans.") and Final Office Action mailed June 30, 2017
("Final Act.").
2 Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V., the applicant, as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007233
Application 14/768,841
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 10-14.3 We have jurisdiction
under§ 6(b).
We reverse.
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention is directed to methods for operating a grinder, such as a
grinder for coffee beans. Spec., Title, 1:2-5. Claim 1, reproduced below
with emphasis added, is the sole independent claim on appeal and
representative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of operating a grinder comprising at least a
rotary grinding member, the method comprising acts of:
starting a first grinding cycle having a duration;
feeding the grinder with a given amount of material to be
ground and grinding said material by rotating the rotary grinding
member for a period of active grinding;
idly rotating the rotary grinding member for a period of
idle rotation following the period of active grinding, for
removing residual ground material from the grinder, the period
of active grinding and the period of idle rotation defining a
grinding cycle;
estimating when the given amount of material has been
ground based on an operating parameter of the grinder; and
adapting the duration for a subsequent grinding cycle
based on an estimated duration of the period of active grinding
of the first grinding cycle.
3 The Examiner indicates claims 6-9 and 1 7-20 as allowable.
Final Act. 5-6.
2
Appeal2018-007233
Application 14/768,841
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Wuthrich (US 2011/0155829 Al, pub. June 30,
2011).
ANALYSIS
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co., 814 F .2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, Appellant argues Wuthrich does not anticipate
claims 1-5 and 10-14 because Wuthrich does not disclose the step of
"adapting the duration for a subsequent grinding cycle based on an estimated
duration of the period of active grinding of the first grinding cycle," recited
in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 3-6. In particular,
Appellant asserts Wuthrich discloses measuring, storing, and displaying
rotational speed values of a mill, not adapting a duration for a subsequent
grinding cycle based on an estimated duration of a period of active grinding
of a first grinding cycle, as recited in this limitation. Reply Br. 6.
Appellant's argument is persuasive.
Regarding this limitation, the Examiner finds "Wuthrich teaches
different rotational speed values can be also attributed to a change of
material to be ground (paragraph 0030, lines 1-5) which accounts for
updated values of rotational speed values with every subsequent cycle
whether new coffee is used or not." Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds
"Wuthrich discloses a relationship between the number of rotation and time
3
Appeal2018-007233
Application 14/768,841
in min (paragraph 0033, lines 1-3, Fig. 1) which denotes the grinding cycle
and is broken down in different regions." Id.
Although Figure 1 of Wuthrich shows a grinder operating at a
particular rotational speed for a period of time, the Examiner has not
explained sufficiently how changing the rotational speed affects the period
of time the grinder operates at a speed. Rather, Wuthrich teaches that the
grinder operates at a particular rotational speed based upon the condition of
idling, normal grinding, or blockage. Wuthrich ,r,r 33-36. At most,
Wuthrich discloses updating the rotational speed during the normal grinding
procedure based upon the material being ground. Id. ,r 30.
Absent a relationship between rotational speed and duration of the
grinding procedure at that speed, there is insufficient support for the
Examiner's finding that Wuthrich's teaching of updating rotational speed
values discloses, expressly or inherently, "adapting the duration for a
subsequent grinding cycle based on an estimated duration of the period of
active grinding of the first grinding cycle," as recited in independent claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner has not shown sufficiently that
Wuthrich anticipates independent claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-5 and 10-14
depending therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 10-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
4