Ex Parte Saksena et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

11857479 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ATUL SAKSENA, LARRY W. LYONS, and
MICHAEL B. RECKNER
____________________

Appeal 2011-008100
Application 11/857,479
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008100
Application 11/857,479

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A steam cooking system, comprising:
a steam cooking chamber having an access door and a
drain for draining condensate from the steam cooking chamber
along a drain path; and
a steam generator unit for heating water to generate
steam, the steam generator unit connected for delivery of steam
from the steam generator unit to the steam cooking chamber via
a first steam path during a cooking operation, the steam
generator unit also connected for delivery of steam from the
steam generator to the drain path via a second steam path
during a steam flushing operation.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Breinl (DE 102006010460 A1; pub. Sep. 6, 2007);
2. Claim 4, 7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breinl and Childs (US 5,014,679; iss. May 14, 1991);
3. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breinl, Childs, and Marino (US 5,586,487; iss. Dec. 24,
1996); and
4. Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breinl.
Appeal 2011-008100
Application 11/857,479

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Breinl discloses each of the features of
claims 1 and 10. Ans. 8-11. Specifically, the Examiner considers the
passage 43 in Breinl to be the claimed second steam path that delivers steam
from the steam generator 5 to the drain path 19, explaining that the passage
43 is capable of performing the functional language (i.e., delivering steam)
recited in claims 1 and 10. Ans. 4, 8, 10.
Appellants argue that the passage 43 in Breinl is not capable of
delivering steam from the steam generator 5 to the drain path 19 because the
passage 43 is connected at the bottom of the steam generator 5 that contains
liquid for generating steam and below the heating element 57 of the steam
generator so that steam cannot pass from the steam generator 5 to passage
43. App. Br. 3-4. Appellants explain that once the heating element 57 in
Breinl is no longer submerged, the heating element would no longer be in a
position to continue steam generation. App. Br. 4.
The Examiner appears to take the position that if each of the claim
elements is disclosed in Breinl, the system of Breinl must be capable of
performing the claimed steam delivery. Ans. 8. However, this does not
appear to be correct. Breinl appears to always have liquid in the steam
generator unit 5 at a level above the opening 9 (ultimately the passage from
the steam generating unit 5 to the passage 43) during steam generation. The
Examiner has not established any manner in which steam is capable of being
delivered from the steam generator 5 to the drain path 19 via the passage 43
in Breinl. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10. Claims
2-9 depend from claim 1 and claims 11-17 depend from claim 10. The
stated bases for the rejections of these claims do not cure the deficiencies in
Appeal 2011-008100
Application 11/857,479

4
the rejection of claims 1 and 10 and we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 2-9 and 11-17.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17.

REVERSED

mls