Ex Parte Tan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

13988514 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/988,514 08/05/2013 Jingwei Tan
24737 7590 08/29/2018
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.
201 OP01056WO-US01 3286
EXAMINER
LEFF, STEVEN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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 JINGWEI TAN and ENG CHENG KHA W 1
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and JANEE.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Koninklijke Philips N.V. is identified as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
Appellants claim a beverage preparation device comprising a module
for dividing raw material( s) into several ingredients, a plurality of storage
chambers for storing the several ingredients, each of said several ingredients
having a different taste property, a processor for determining the dosage of
each ingredient to be used according to a reference table describing the taste
property of each ingredient and a user's preferred taste, and a generator for
generating a beverage from at least one of said several ingredients according
to said predetermined dosage (independent claim 1 ). Appellants also claim a
corresponding method of preparing a beverage (remaining independent
claim 11 ).
Further details regarding Appellants' claim subject matter are set forth
in representative claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, a copy of which taken from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief appears below.
1. A beverage preparation device comprising:
a module for dividing raw material(s) of the beverage into said several
ingredients;2
a plurality of storage chambers for storing several ingredients,
respectively, each of said several ingredients having a different taste
property;
a user interface for receiving data representing a user's preferred taste;
a taste management unit comprising:
a memory for storing a reference table which describes the taste
property of each ingredient; and
2 We observe that the phrase "said several ingredients" lacks strict
antecedent basis and should read simply "several ingredients."
2
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
a processor for determining the dosage of each ingredient to be
used according to said reference table and the user's preferred taste,
and
a generator for generating a beverage from at least one of said several
ingredients according to said determined dosage.
4. The beverage preparation device according to claim 1, wherein said
taste property is defined by at least one of:
the degree of sourness;
the degree of sweetness;
the degree of bitterness; and
the degree of thickness.
5. The beverage preparation device according to claim 4, wherein the
ingredient corresponding to the degree of thickness is water.
6. The beverage preparation device according to claim 1, wherein said
module for dividing raw material(s) comprises a cutter for cutting a single
raw material into said several ingredients.
8. The beverage preparation device according to claim 1, wherein the
raw material is fruit or vegetables or food products.
9. The beverage preparation device according to claim 1, wherein said
user interface includes at least one taste setting unit for receiving the data
representing a user's preferred taste.
10. The beverage preparation device according to claim 1, wherein
said module for dividing raw material(s) comprises at least one taste sensor
by means of which the raw material( s) of the beverage is( are) accurately
divided into said several different ingredients.
3
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 2 and 7 (App. Br. 23). Therefore, claims 2 and 7 will
stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Boland (US 2006/0081653 Al;
published Apr. 20, 2006) (Final Action 2).
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons given in the Final Office
Action, the Answer, and below.
Concerning the independent claims, Appellants argue that "Boland
fails to describe, expressly or inherently, any mechanism for a dispenser ...
for dividing raw material[ s] into several ingredients" (App. Br. 19).
However, as correctly stated by the Examiner, the independent claims
do not recite a mechanism for dividing raw materials into several ingredients
(Ans. 5). In this regard, we emphasize Appellants' teaching that dividing the
raw materials into several ingredients may be done manually and that storing
the several ingredients in respective storage chambers likewise may be done
manually (Spec. 12, claim 2). This teaching evinces that it is reasonable and
consistent with the Specification to interpret the claimed feature of dividing
raw materials into several ingredients as encompassing the feature of
manually dividing/separating raw materials into several ingredients by
storing/separating the ingredients in respective storage chambers. This
claim interpretation is consistent with the Examiner's finding of anticipation
(see, e.g, Ans. 6 ("Boland teach[ e ]s ... different ingredients (par. 0088;
4
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
0090) which are separated for a purpose of providing user[ s with] chosen
flavor ingredients.")).
Appellants also contend that Boland contains no teaching of the
independent claim features wherein each of the several ingredients has a
different taste property (App. Br. 20) and wherein a dosage of each
ingredient is determined according to a reference table of the ingredient's
taste property and the user's preferred taste (id. at 21).
Appellants' contention lacks persuasive merit in view of Boland's
express disclosures of using flavor characteristics as recipe features defining
the amount of each component in the recipe (Boland ,r 230; see also ,r,r 198-
201) based on the user's preferred taste (Boland Abst. ("The customer is
then presented with the selected serving and either accepts it or modifies
it."), ,r 212 ("[The user] prefers hot chocolate, and ... chooses a sweetness
level of 3.")).
Appellants argue without elaboration that Boland contains no teaching
of the features recited in dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 15 (App. Br.
19-21 ). 3
3 We particularly emphasize that Appellants do not explain how the
beverage preparation device of independent claim 1 is further limited by the
ingredient recitation of dependent claims 4, 5, and 8. In any further
prosecution that may occur, Appellants and the Examiner should explore and
resolve whether these claims comply with the "further limiting" requirement
of 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) and whether Boland's device anticipates such claims
solely due to it being capable of processing the recited ingredients.
5
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
This unembellished argument is contradicted by Boland's explicit
teachings regarding the sweetness and thickness (i.e., viscosity) features of
claims 4 and 13 (Boland ,r,r 198-201, 212,230), the water feature of claim 5
(id. at ,r 95), the raw fruit feature of claim 8 (id. at ,r 90), and the user's
preferred taste feature of claims 9 and 15 (id. at ,r,r 198-201, 212).
For the above-stated reasons and those given by the Examiner, we
sustain the§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 as
anticipated by Boland.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boland (Final Action 3). Regarding the cutter limitation
of claims 6 and 14 specifically, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide Boland with a cutter "for its art recognized purpose
of dividing the raw materials into several ingredients, i.e. amount being used
and amount remaining in storage" (id.).
We perceive merit in Appellants' position that Boland contains no
teaching or suggestion "to cut raw material into several ingredients having
different taste properties" (App. Br. 25). Regarding this position, we
emphasize that the several ingredients referred to in claims 6 and 14 are
required by their parent independent claims to have different taste properties
("each of said several ingredients having a different taste property" ( claims
1, 11)). This requirement is not satisfied by the Examiner's rejection which
identifies the several ingredients as "[the] amount being used and [the]
amount remaining in storage" (Final Action 3) because the used and
6
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
remaining amounts of the ingredient in question would have the same taste
property.
In light of the Examiner's failure to address the above discussed
requirement, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 14 as
unpatentable over Boland.
However, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable
over Boland because Appellants do not challenge the claim 7 rejection as
previously mentioned.
Finally, the Examiner rejects claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Boland in view of Fung et al. (US
2009/0212663 Al; published Aug. 27, 2009) (Final Action 4--5). The
Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate the sensor of Fung into the taste management
system of Boland, since Boland requires defining taste characteristics and
since Fung teaches the sensor" (id. at 4).
Appellants argue that "Fung fails to describe, teach or suggest any
reason to modify the 'base-flavoring-dosing' operating principle of Boland
by modifying Boland to incorporate a need [i.e., a taste sensor as claimed]
for tasting any raw material as the raw material is divided into several
ingredients having different taste properties" (App. Br. 28).
Appellants' argument is convincing based on the record before us.
This is because the Examiner's rejection does not contain any specific
7
Appeal2017-010691
Application 13/988,514
reason to use Fung's sensor in Boland's module or step for dividing raw
materials of a beverage into several ingredients as required by claims 10 and
12. Such a reason is necessary in this rejection particularly because the only
disclosure of Fung cited by the Examiner (i.e., Fung ,r 22 (Final Action 4))
teaches using a sensor for taste testing a beverage rather than a raw material
of the beverage as claimed.
As a consequence, we also do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of claims 10 and 12 as unpatentable over Boland in view of Fung.
In summary, we sustain the§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9,
11, 13, and 15 but do not sustain the§ 103 rejections of claims 6, 7, 10, 12,
and 14.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8