Ex Parte Taguchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

12672451 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/672,451 02/05/2010 Masatake Taguchi
23552 7590 08/22/2016
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
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.
13869.0057FPWO 9640
EXAMINER
LONG, DONNELL ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
USPT023552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASATAKE TAGUCHI
and YOSITAKA TOMINO
Appeal2014-008552
Application 12/672,451
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1and4--17. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-008552
Application 12/672,451
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A beverage container which preserves a beverage and
dispenses the beverage using a pressurized gas, the beverage
container comprising:
a beverage storage section having top, side, and bottom
walls, and a liquid outlet;
an outer wall, which covers an outer periphery of the
beverage storage section and is separated from the beverage
storage section by a hollow section, wherein the outer wall
covers an entirety of the beverage storage section except for the
bottom wall and the liquid outlet;
a gas outlet which communicates the hollow section and
an outer area; wherein the hollow section is filled with a
pressurized gas; and
a passage through which the hollow section
communicates with the beverage storage section;
wherein the beverage container comprises a reinforcing
part which connects the beverage storage section and the outer
wall; and
wherein the pressurized gas provides a means for both
insulating and dispensing the beverage.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Meike (US 6,820,775 B2, iss. Nov. 23, 2004) and
Furuhashi (US 5,165,569, iss. Nov. 24, 1992).
Claims 5-7, 9, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Meike, Furuhashi, and Pleet (US 4,921,135, iss. May 1,
1990).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Meike, Furuhashi, Pleet, and Zeitler (US 8,241,918 B2,
iss. Aug. 14, 2012).
2
Appeal2014-008552
Application 12/672,451
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Meike, Furuhashi, Pleet, and Stokes (US 5,513,496, iss. May 7, 1996).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Meike and Furuhashi
The Examiner found that Meike discloses the invention substantially
as claimed, but lacks an outer wall that covers the entire beverage storage
section except for the bottom wall and the liquid outlet, and also lacks a
reinforcing part. Final Act. 2. The Examiner found that Furuhashi teaches
these features. Id. at 2-3. The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to modify Meike' s container to include a reinforcing part and outer
wall that covers the entire beverage storage section except the bottom wall
and liquid outlet as taught by Furuhashi "because it is a known and suitable
alternative configuration for beer kegs and would have been expected to
perform equally well." Id. at 3. The Examiner also determined that this
modification was a suitable alternative configuration for cooling a beverage
container while also providing a hollow space to hold a greater quantity of
pressurized gas for dispensing the beverage. Ans. 10-11.
As support for this determination, the Examiner cited Furuhashi' s
teaching of alternative configurations for beverage container cooling faces.
Id. at 9-11. The Examiner reasoned that extending the outer wall of Meike' s
container and moving the cooling face to the container bottom would not
affect the operation of Mieke' s container or its ability to cool a beverage. Id.
Although Mieke does not teach the use of its pressurized gas chamber as an
insulator, the Examiner found that a skilled artisan would understand that a
pressurized gas chamber would create a thermal boundary between the inner
liquid beverage container and the environment. Id. at 11.
3
Appeal2014-008552
Application 12/672,451
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have extended upper
gas chamber 3 of Meike to cover the entire lower beer chamber 2 because
the extended gas pocket would prevent proper use of cooling jacket 29 that
Meike places around lower beer chamber 2 in a "snug fit" to cool beer in the
lower chamber. Appeal Br. 14--15. As a result, Appellants argue that the
proposed modification would render Meike' s container unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose of providing a snug fit and direct contact between the outer
cooling jacket and the lower beer chamber. Id. Appellants also argue that
replacing the upper gas chamber of Meike' s keg with the adiabatic layer of
Furuhashi and extending that layer around the entire side wall would render
Meike's container unsuitable for the objective of a simple manufacturing
process. Reply Br. 4. Appellants further argue that this modification would
not yield a gas-filled hollow section, as claimed. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner's reason for modifying upper gas chamber 3 of Meike
to include a reinforcing part and to cover the entire beverage storage section
except the bottom wall and the liquid outlet, as claimed, is not supported by
rational underpinning. The Examiner has not established sufficiently that
Furuhashi's heat-insulating vacuum adiabatic layer is a suitable alternative
configuration for upper gas chamber 3 and cooling jacket 29 of Meike such
that it would have been obvious to make the modification. Meike teaches
that upper gas chamber 3 contains pressurized gas to dispense beverage from
the keg. Meike, 1:5-7, 2:22-39, Fig. 1. Furuhashi teaches an improved
means of insulating a beer keg with a vacuum adiabatic layer V L. Furuhashi,
1 :34--2:2. Pressurized carbon dioxide must be injected from an external
source to dispense beer from the Furuhashi keg, unlike Meike' s keg in which
pressurized carbon dioxide is stored in upper gas chamber 3. Id. at 3:63---67.
4
Appeal2014-008552
Application 12/672,451
Furuhashi' s disclosure of alternative configurations for the cooling
surface Cz and the insulating outer adiabatic vacuum layer VL in Figures 4
and 6 does not necessarily mean that a skilled artisan would have extended
upper carbon dioxide chamber 3 of Meike along the entire container side as
the Examiner proposes (Ans. 10-11) as a suitable alternative configuration
to Meike' s preferred configuration in Figure 1. Meike teaches that its design
is an improvement over bulky prior art kegs with outer jackets containing
gas chambers that are hard to cool. Meike, 1 :32-36. Meike touts its design
as inexpensive to make because a single, circular weld can connect the three
main parts that form upper gas chamber 3 and beer chamber 2. Id. at 2:7-
18. Meike also teaches that this configuration is easier to cool than prior art
kegs with thick outer jackets (id. at 1 :32-36) because the internal surface of
beer chamber 2 directly contacts the beverage and promotes extraction of
heat directly through the wall (id. at 2:8-13). Cooling jacket 29 fits snugly
around the external surface of beer chamber 2 to provide good heat transfer.
Id. at 3:55---60, Fig. 1; see also Reply Br. 3, 5.
We are not persuaded that Furuhashi' s adiabatic outer cylinder shell 8
for vacuum insulation, and exposed lower plate 5 for cooling, would have
been a suitable alternative configuration for Meike' s upper carbon dioxide
chamber 3 and cooling jacket 29 for the reasons discussed above.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 14, and 15.
Claims 5-7, 9, 13, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Meike, Furuhashi, Pleet
Independent claim 5 recites a beverage container with similar features
as claim 1 and including a cooling device communicating with an exposed
bottom wall. The Examiner relied on Meike and Furuhashi to teach the
same features as claim 1 and Pleet to teach a cooling device. Final Act. 4--5.
5
Appeal2014-008552
Application 12/672,451
Appellants argue that claim 5 is directed to a beverage container
having the same features as the beverage container of claim 1, and Pleet
does not cure the deficiencies of Meike and Furuhashi. Appeal Br. 17. We
agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5-7, 9, 13, 16, and 17.
Claims 10--12 unpatentable over Meike, Furuhashi, Pleet, and Zeitler/Stokes
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 10-12 based on Meike,
Furuhashi, and Pleet as applied to claim 5, and Zeitler or Stokes to teach the
features recited in claims 10-12. Final Act. 7-8. Appellants argue that the
Examiner's reliance on Zeitler or Stokes to teach features of claims 10-12
does not cure the deficiencies of Meike, Furuhashi, and Pleet as to claim 5.
Appeal Br. 18. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
10-12.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1and4--17.
REVERSED
6