Ex Parte Pimiä

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 1, 2018

13512147 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/512,147 05/25/2012
466 7590
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
10/03/2018
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JuhaPimiil
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.
3501-1199 4232
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2018 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firs ttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUHA PIMIA
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
Technology Center 3700
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 21-37, 40,
43, and 44, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons explained below, we do not find error in the
rejections. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Iittala Group Oy AB. Appeal Br.
1.
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 33 are independent. Claim 21, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
21. A cooking vessel for induction heating, the cooking
vessel comprising:
a blank container for cooking, the blank container having
an outer bottom surface with a concavity therein, the outer
bottom surface having a first level inside the concavity and a
second level different from the first level outside the concavity;
and
a ferromagnetic bottom member in the concavity of the
blank container for induction heating the cooking vessel,
wherein said ferromagnetic bottom member has a
diameter that is equal to or less than a diameter of the
concavity, an upper surface facing the outer bottom surface of
the blank container, and an opposite bottom surface facing
away from the blank container,
wherein both the upper surface and the bottom surface of
said ferromagnetic bottom member are coated by at least one
metal layer that has a depth of 5-40µm, and
wherein said at least one metal layer on the upper surface
of the ferromagnetic bottom member attaches said
ferromagnetic bottom member to the outer bottom surface of
the blank container.
Rejections
I. Claims 21-24, 26-37, 43, and 44 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Matsushita (US 4,614,852, issued
Sept. 30, 1986), Seymour (US 3,115,421, issued Dec. 24, 1963), and Spring
(US 2007 /0292706 Al, published Dec. 20, 2007). Final Act. 3-14.
II. Claims 25 and 40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Matsushita, Seymour, Spring, and Fissler (US
5,487,329, issued Jan. 30, 1996). Final Act. 14.
2
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds Matsushita teaches several limitations of claim
21, including the blank container having an outer bottom surface with a
concavity, a ferromagnetic bottom member in the concavity, and wherein the
bottom surface of the ferromagnetic bottom member is coated by at least one
metal layer. Final Act. 3. The Examiner provides an annotated version of
Matsushita's Figure 1 to illustrate the concavity in Matsushita where the
ferromagnetic layer 2 is located. Id. at 4. The Examiner's annotated Figure
1 of Matsushita is reproduced below.
______________________________ I
Figure 1 of Matsushita "is a vertical sectional view of a cooking
utensil," with a portion enlarged to show the layers at the bottom of the
utensil or pan. Matsushita col. 1, 11. 53-55. The Examiner's annotation
identifies the concavity.
The Examiner finds Matsushita does not teach: ( 1) the ferromagnetic
bottom member has a diameter that is equal to or less than a diameter of the
concavity, (2) both the upper surface and the bottom surface of the
3
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
ferromagnetic bottom member are coated by the at least one metal layer,
having a depth of 5--40 µm; and (3) wherein the at least one metal layer on
the upper surface of the ferromagnetic bottom member attaches the
ferromagnetic bottom member to the outer bottom surface of the blank
container. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Seymour's teaching of
immersing ferrous metals in hot aluminum baths (hot dip method) to coat the
ferrous metal object and Spring's teaching of a cooking vessel for induction
heating that has three layers connected by roll-bonding. Id. The Examiner
finds one of skill in the art would have had reason to hot dip Matsushita's
ferromagnetic bottom member as taught by Seymour and would have had
reason to apply the teachings of Spring to attach the at least one metal layer
on the upper surface of the ferromagnetic bottom member to the outer
bottom surface of the blank container via roll-bonding. Id. at 5. The
Examiner also finds one of skill in the art would have had reason to
construct the aluminum pan in circular form, which would result in the
ferromagnetic bottom member and concavity having diameters, "and to
conform to the bottom circular base of the pan, the ferromagnetic bottom
member would obviously require a diameter that is equal to or less than a
diameter of the concavity." Id. The Examiner also finds one of skill in the
art would have made the depth (i.e., thickness) of the at least one metal layer
that coats the upper and bottom surface of the ferromagnetic member to be
any suitable depth as desired based on the desired application, and also that
discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the depth of the metal
layer(s) would have involved only routine skill in the art. Id. at 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner's identification of the bottom of
Matsushita's pan as including a concavity "is not well supported by the
4
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
reference." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant argues "Matsushita nowhere discloses
its cooking utensil 1 as being formed from a blank provided with a
concavity; instead, Matsushita merely discloses that ferromagnetic layer 2 is
sprayed onto the bottom of utensil 1, and layer 3 is then sprayed so as to
cover the layer 2." Id. Appellant contends Matsushita's layer 3 is the same
material as that of the utensil 1 ( aluminum), so layer 3 is indistinct in the
finished product. Id. Appellant also argues "Matsushita could have been
produced simply by spraying successive layers 2 and 3 onto an ordinary
cooking utensil 1 with no specially provided concavity, and the text of
Matsushita does not suggest otherwise." Id.
Appellant's argument regarding the claimed concavity in the outer
bottom surface of the blank container does not inform us of error in the
rejection. We agree with the Examiner that "looking at Figure 1 of
Matsushita, the ferromagnetic bottom member/magnetic layer 2, and at least
one metal layer/nonmagnetic layer 3 appear to be layered in a
depression/concavity of the blank container/vessel 1." Ans. 2.
Appellant also argues Seymour does not pertain to cookware, and
Matsushita already encapsulates the ferrous layer in aluminum by a
fundamentally different technique, and, therefore, "a skilled artisan simply
would have made no connection between the spray coating technique of
Matsushita ... and a general description of an immersion technique, as in
Seymour." Appeal Br. 3--4. Appellant does not, however, address the
Examiner's findings and reasoning that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have dipped a ferromagnetic member in a hot aluminum bath as taught in
Seymour to use in the base of Matsushita's utensil 1 "in order to protect both
the upper and bottom surfaces of the ferromagnetic bottom member from
5
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
oxidation and corrosion." Final Act. 5. Appellant's argument, therefore,
does not inform us of error in the rejection on this basis.
Regarding Spring, Appellant argues "there is no apparent reason why
a skilled artisan would have considered modifying the spray coating
technique of Matsushita or the immersion technique of Seymour in view of
the roll-bonding technique of Spring." Appeal Br. 4. Again, however,
Appellant does not explain why the Examiner errs in finding one of skill in
the art would have used Spring's roll-bonding process to attach the metal
layer on the upper surface of the modified Matsushita ferromagnetic member
"in order to prevent the ferromagnetic bottom member from separating from
the blank container." Final Act. 5. For this reason, the mere statement that
there is no apparent reason to use the roll-bonding technique of Spring does
not inform us of error in the rejection.
Appellant also argues "[t]he final rejection concedes that Spring does
not disclose a metal layer attaching the ferromagnetic bottom member to the
blank container as claimed." Appeal Br. 4; see Reply Br. 1-2. We
understand the rejection, however, to be based on using Spring's roll-
bonding process to connect a ferromagnetic member that has been hot
dipped in aluminum to the outer bottom surface of the container in
Matsushita. See Final Act. 3-5. Therefore, Appellant's argument that
Spring alone does not teach this claimed feature does not address the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant further argues that Matsushita, Seymour, and Spring do not
teach the claimed diameter of the ferromagnetic bottom member or that both
the upper surface and the bottom surface of said ferromagnetic bottom
member are coated by at least one metal layer that has a depth of 5-40µm, as
6
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 4; see Reply Br. 1. As discussed above, the
Examiner does not rely on a particular reference to find one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had reason to make Matsushita's modified utensil in a
way that satisfied these dimensional limitations. Appellant's arguments
relating only to Matsushita, Seymour, and Spring do not, therefore, inform
us of error in the rejection on this basis.
Appellant also contends "Matsushita discloses a different and greater
thickness for its outer layer, which it arrived at after extensive
experimentation." Appeal Br. 5. Teaching a different thickness does not,
however, undermine the Examiner's finding that one of skill in the art would
have used any suitable depth as desired for a particular application, "such as
a depth suitable for high heating efficiency of the cooking vessel," and also
would have discovered optimum or workable ranges of the depth using only
routine skill in the art. Final Act. 6.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsushita, Seymour, and Spring.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, and, for the same reasons, the
rejection of claims 22-24, 26-32, 36, and 43, which are not argued
separately.
Regarding claims 33-35, 37, and 44, Appellant contends that the
claims are independently patentable from product claim 21 because these
claims recite methods. See Appeal Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellant argues
"there is plainly no disclosure in Matsushita of a blank container that starts
out with a concavity as claimed, i.e., before the ferromagnetic bottom
member is affixed." Id. at 5. In the context of the rejection as a whole,
7
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
however, where the Examiner provides reasons why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have first dipped Matsushita's ferromagnetic member in a hot
aluminum bath and then roll-bonded this member to the outer bottom surface
of Matsushita's pan into the concavity, merely arguing that Matsushita does
not expressly teach starting out with a cavity is insufficient to inform us of
error in the rejection based on obviousness. See Final Act. 9--12. Appellant
also argues method claims 33-35, 37, and 44 are independently patentable
because "the proposed combination of Matsushita, Seymour and Spring,
involving as it does the three fundamentally different techniques of spray
coating ... (Matsushita), immersion (Seymour) and roll bonding (Spring),
while certainly untenable as to the product claims, is plainly yet more
untenable as to the method claims." Id. at 5---6. As discussed herein,
however, the Examiner provides reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have employed the processes of Seymour and Spring in the manner
claimed, and Appellant's arguments do not show error in the rejection
without directly addressing the findings and reasoning set forth by the
Examiner.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 33-35,
37, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsushita,
Seymour, and Spring.
Rejection II
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 25 and 40 is in error for the
reasons given in support of claims 21-24, 26-37, 43, and 44. Appeal Br. 6.
8
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
Because we sustain the rejection of claims 21-24, 26-37, 43, and 44, we are
not informed of error in the rejection of claims 25 and 40 on this basis.
Appellant also argues:
Additionally, given that Matsushita specially forms his
ferromagnetic layer by spray coating, and touts the weight
savings and performance increases that it says result from that
technique, a skilled artisan would not likely have been guided to
alter that technique by the use of separately affixed inserts as in
Fissler.
Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a
ferromagnetic bottom member formed from plural annular rings as taught by
Fissler "in order to achieve extremely high homogenous heating of the
cooking vessel, as suggested by Fissler in [ column 2,] lines 26-34." Final
Act. 14. Thus, the Examiner identifies advantages to using Fissler's design
for the ferromagnetic member, and Appellant does not address these
advantages. Without more, the identification of advantages to Matsushita's
design does not inform us of error in the Examiner's rejection.
Separately for claim 40, Appellant also argues "[ t ]he use of plural
annular rings as recited in claim 40 is a further distinction in relation to
Fissler, whose inserts are of markedly different configurations." Appeal Br.
6. Fissler, however, illustrates in Figure 2 arcuate shaped recesses 8 and
filling pieces 9, and teaches that "covering base recesses 8 and the covering
base filling pieces 9 can also be continuously circular." Fissler col. 5, 11. 7-
9; see Final Act. 14. The evidence, therefore, contradicts Appellant's
assertion.
9
Appeal2018-002529
Application 13/512,147
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 25 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsushita, Seymour, Spring,
and Fissler.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 21-37, 40, 43, and 44.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10