Ex Parte Suenaga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

13266243 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/266,243 10/26/2011 Hiromi Suenaga 0020-5929PUS1 9923
127226 7590 09/08/2017
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
CHOU, JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROMI SUENAGA and SHIGENORI MORIMOTO
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
Technology Center 3700
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hiromi Suenaga and Shigenori Morimoto (“Appellants”) appeal from
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to a cooking device that purports to
improve safety by keeping condensate water away from any electrical
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
components. See, e.g., Spec. H 1, 9, 22, 23. Claim 1 is the sole independent
claim and is reproduced below with emphases added to particular limitations
at issue in this appeal.
1. A cooking device comprising:
an outer casing;
an inner casing having a top wall, a bottom wall, front
wall, back wall and side walls, the inner casing forming a heating
chamber provided within the outer casing and having an opening
on the front wall;
a heat shield member provided between the outer casing
and the heating chamber to block heat that transfers from the
heating chamber toward the outer casing;
a blower device arranged and configured to take in air
from outside the outer casing and blow off the air into the outer
casing', and
an air blow path provided in the outer casing, through
which the air blown offfrom the blower device flows, wherein
at least a part of the heat shield member is placed below
the heating chamber such that the heat shield member is allowed
to receive water droplets dropping through between the heating
chamber and the outer casing, and the cooking device has a
structural arrangement such that
the air blow path includes a first space between said at
least a part of the heat shield member placed below the heating
chamber and a bottom of the heating chamber and a second
space between said at least a part of the heat shield member
placed below the heating chamber and the outer casing, wherein
the heat shield member has a peripheral wall part provided
between the inner casing and the outer casing and provided in a
position that extends beyond a perimeter defined by the walls of
the inner casing and facing a lower part of the side walls of the
inner casing.
Br., Claims App. 1.
2
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
THE REJECTION
Claims 1,3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Okamura (JP 2007-003150, published January 11, 2007),
Jeong (US 7,049,568 B2, issued May 23, 2006), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-
051360, published March 6, 2008). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
The Rejection
In rejecting the claims as unpatentable over Okamura, Jeong, and
Yamamoto, the Examiner relies on Okamura for disclosing several of the
claimed features. See Final Act. 2—3 (citing Okamura, Figs. 1, 2, 8). To
help illustrate the Examiner’s findings, we reproduce the cited figures.
Okamura’s Figure 8 is reproduced below:
/
3
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
According to Okamura, Figure 8 depicts cooking device 1, with outer
packaging 2, inner case 3, heat chamber 4, and door 5. Okamura1118. The
Examiner finds that Okamura’s outer packaging 2 satisfies the claimed
“outer casing,” and Okamura’s inner case 3 satisfies the claimed “inner
casing,” which also forms the claimed “heat chamber” 4. Final Act. 2—3.
We also reproduce Okamura’s Figure 2, below:
According to Okamura, Figure 2 is a right-side sectional view of its
cooking device. Okamura 121. Figure 2 depicts hot wind oven unit 11
formed on the back of heat chamber 4. Id. Hot wind oven unit 11 comprises
heater 12, fan 13, and fan motor 14. Id. Figure 2 also shows Okamura’s
drain pan part 42, which receives water from a drain hole at the bottom of
heat chamber 4. Id. 1 5. The Examiner relies on drain pan part 42 for
1 Citations herein to the written disclosures of Okamura and Yamamoto
refer to English translations provided in the record.
4
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
satisfying the claimed “heat shield member,” and finds that it is “allowed to
receive water droplets dropping through between ‘the heating chamber’ (4)
and ‘the outer casing’ (2).” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
We further reproduce Okamura’s Figure 1, below:
According to Okamura, Figure 1 is a front sectional view of the
disclosed cooking device. See Okamura 121. Figure 1 depicts steam­
feeding equipment 25 with water tank 26, feed pump 27, steam generator 28,
and water supply pipe 29. Id. Steam from steam generator 28 is injected
into heat chamber 4 through steamy rocket engine jets 30 for cooking food.
See id. 124. Figure 1 also depicts cooling fan device 15. Id. 121.
The Examiner relies on Okamura’s cooling fan device 15 for
satisfying the claimed “blower device,” and proposes to combine Okamura
with Jeong and Yamamoto to address the full claim limitation (Final Act. 3—
5), reproduced below:
a blower device arranged and configured to take in air
from outside the outer casing and blow off the air into the outer
casing; and
5
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
an air blow path provided in the outer casing, through
which the air blown off from the blower device flows, wherein
the air blow path includes a first space between said at
least a part of the heat shield member placed below the heating
chamber and a bottom of the heating chamber and a second space
between said at least a part of the heat shield member placed
below the heating chamber and the outer casing.
Br., Claims App. 1.
In addressing this claim limitation, the Examiner finds that Okamura’s
cooling fan 15 satisfies the claimed “blower device” that blows air through
“an air blow path provided in the outer casing.” Final Act. 3. In arriving at
this finding, the Examiner explains, “the spaces inside [Okamura’s] cooking
device refer to an air blow path because the structure is not completely
sealed or air tight.'1'’ Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds that
Okamura’s “air blow path” includes the claimed “first space between ... at
least a part of the heat shield member [42] . . . and a bottom of the heating
chamber [4].” See id. In support of this particular finding, the Examiner
submits the following annotated version of Okamura’s Figure 2 (Id. at 3, 6):
6
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
According to the Examiner, the above figure depicts Okamura’s “air
blow path” that includes the claimed “first space.” See id.
The Examiner acknowledges that “Okamura does not explicitly . . .
teach a blower device arranged and configured to take in air from outside the
outer casing and blow off the air into the outer casing,” and relies on Jeong
for addressing this shortcoming. Final Act. 4 (emphasis added and omitted)
(citing Jeong, Fig. 1). The Examiner submits an annotated version of
Jeong’s Figures 1 and 2 to illustrate this finding. Id. at 7, 8. We reproduce
the annotated version of Jeong’s Figure 1, below:
7
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
According to the Examiner, Figure 1 depicts Jeong’s blower 50 that is
“arranged and configured to take in air from outside the outer casing and
blow off the air into the outer casing,” as shown by the plurality of arrows.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to
modify Okamura “to have air circulating device in order to get rid of fumes
generated from the heating chamber.'1'1 Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner also acknowledges that “Okamura fails to teach the air
blow path [as] includ[ing] a second space between ... the heat shield
member placed below the ‘heating chamber[,] and ‘the outer casing,[,]” and
relies on Yamamoto for teaching this limitation. Id. (emphasis added and
8
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
omitted) (citing Yamamoto, Fig. 3). To illustrate this finding, the Examiner
submits an annotated version of Yamamoto’s Figure 3 {id. at 9), which we
reproduce below:
i a bottom of the heating |
chamber
DH3]
According to the Examiner, the above figure depicts an “air blow
path” with a “first space” between a “heat shield member” and “bottom of
the heating chamber” and a “second space” between the “heat shield
member” and the “outer casing.” Id. at 3^4.
In combining Yamamoto with Okamura, the Examiner reasons that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have the air blow path
include[] a second space and exhaust port in order to provide
decrease[d] pressure within the casing as taught by Yamamoto.
9
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
Id. at 4—5 (emphasis added) (citing Yamamoto 131).
Appellants ’ Argument
In contesting the rejection, Appellants argue, “the Examiner’s
rejection is rife with speculation and implied inherency rather than providing
cross citations to evidence.” Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue, “the
Examiner’s allegations regarding the Okamura[] air blow path are erroneous
and based on rife speculation” {id. at 12) as “[t]he cooling fan device 15
does not have a clear structure or operation” {id. at 12—13). Appellants
further argue that the Examiner’s attempts to remedy Okamura’s air flow
path deficiency with the other cited art fails. See id. at 13.
Our Analysis
Appellants’ argument is persuasive.
Focusing first on Okamura, the Examiner cites to Okamura’s cooling
fan device 15 for satisfying the claimed “blower device,” and finds that the
claimed “air blow path provided in the outer casing” exists because “the
structure is not completely sealed or air tight.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner
does not cite to any disclosure within Okamura, however, and we cannot
find any evidence to support this finding. See id.', see also Okamura 121
(providing Okamura’s sole discussion of cooling fan device 15).
Accordingly, Okamura does not disclose a cooling fan device that blows air
“in the outer casing,” as found by the Examiner and as required by the
claims.
We now address the Examiner’s reliance on Jeong. Although the
Examiner is correct in that Jeong discloses a blower that circulates air from
10
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
outside an outer casing and circulates air within the outer casing in order “to
exhaust gas and fumes generated from an oven range” (Final Act. 4; see,
e.g., Jeong, col. 4,11. 19—23, Figs. 1, 2), we do not agree that the Examiner
has provided sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Okamura to “get rid of fumes” that
accumulate between Okamura’s outer packaging 2 and inner case 3 (see
Final Act. 4). The Examiner’s modification lacks at least some rational
underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). In
particular, the Examiner’s reasoning presumes that Okamura’s cooking
device accumulates fumes within this same space, but the Examiner cites to
nothing in the record to support such a finding. See Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 13. Rather, Okamura provides little-to-no discussion regarding the
operation of cooling fan device 15 or the space between its outer packaging
2 and inner case 3, nor does Okamura discuss the presence of undesirable
fumes. Like Appellants’ understanding, we discern that Okamura’s cooling
fan device 15 is most likely used for removing heat from its heat chamber 4,
rather than circulating air between the space that exists between its outer
packaging 2 and inner case 3. See Okamura 121; see also Br. 11 (“Jeong’s
fan is merely for exhausting gases from an oven range”).
Additionally, upon reviewing the rejection, we cannot discern whether
the Examiner proposes to modify Okamura’s cooling fan device 15 so that it
not only cools heat chamber 4, as it appears to do, but also removes fumes
that accumulate in the space that exists between outer packaging 2 and inner
11
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
case 3. See Final Act. 4. If the Examiner proposes such a combination, we
are not convinced that such a modification would involve only routine skill
in the art, absent any discussion in the rejection. In particular, we are not
persuaded that it would have been obvious to modify Okamura’s cooling fan
device 15 so that it performs the dual function of (1) removing fumes from
the space between outer packaging 2 and inner case 3, while also (2) cooling
heat chamber 4. If the Examiner proposes some other modification to the
operation of cooling fan device 15, it also lacks sufficient discussion in the
rejection.
We now turn our attention to Yamamoto. Although the Examiner is
correct that this reference discloses air flow (shown by arrows) between the
space created by an “outer casing” 50 and “heating chamber” 22 (Final Act.
4—5; see, e.g., Yamamoto, Fig. 3), we are not persuaded that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Okamura by combining it with
Yamamoto, as the Examiner has done. In particular, the Examiner’s reason
for combining Okamura with Yamamoto—to provide decreased pressure
within the casing—also lacks at least some rational underpinning. Final Act.
5; see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. The Examiner’s reasoning presumes that
a problem with Okamura exists, namely, excessive pressure buildup in the
space between its outer packaging 2 and inner case 3, and that relief of this
excessive pressure would be a reason to add Yamamoto’s flow path. See
Final Act. 4—5. Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion (see id. (citing
Yamamoto 131)), however, we do not find Yamamoto’s paragraph 31 as
teaching the addition of a flow path and exhaust port for the purpose of
decreasing pressure. Because the record also does not support a finding that
undesirable pressure buildup exists between Okamura’s outer packaging 2
12
Appeal 2016-006512
Application 13/266,243
and inner case 3, we are not convinced that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would add the claimed flow path to “provide decrease[d] pressure,” as
reasoned by the Examiner. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
3, and 4 as unpatentable over Okamura, Jeong, and Yamamoto.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 as unpatentable over
Okamura, Jeong, and Yamamoto.
REVERSED
13