Ex Parte Tuchrelo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13345293 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
13/345,293 01/06/2012 Robert Richard Tuchrelo PA-0020927-WO 2634
50811 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHUONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT RICHARD TUCHRELO and
JEFFREY QUINT CAHOON1
Appeal 2016-003003
Application 13/345,293
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 37—66, 101, and 102. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants indicate that the real party in interest is Carrier Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003003
Application 13/345,293
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosure is directed to “an apparatus and method for
preparing food, and more particularly, to an apparatus and method for
cutting a whole fruit into a plurality of readily consumable cut pieces.”
Spec. 11.
Claim 37, reproduced below with emphasis added, is the sole
independent claim.
37. An apparatus for preparing a unit of fruit, comprising:
a housing including a cup receptacle;
a cup assembly received in the cup receptacle and adapted
to support the unit of fruit after the unit of fruit is placed therein
in substantial alignment along a first axis;
a drive assembly including a lance located within the
housing and aligned with the first axis, the lance being rotatable
about the first axis and reciprocally movable along the first axis
relative to the cup assembly such that the lance is operable to
impale the unit of fruit and retain the unit of fruit while in the
housing;
a first sensor located in the housing and adapted to sense a
dimension of the unit of fruit as the lance moves the unit of fruit
along the first axis;
a controller operatively connected to the first sensor and
adapted to determine a cutting operation for the unit of fruit,
based on the sensed dimension;
a cutting assembly located in the housing and operatively
connected to the controller, the cutting assembly adapted to
perform the determined cutting operation on the unit of fruit
while the lance retains the unit of fruit, thereby to create
consumable cut pieces of fruit; and
an opening formed in the housing where the consumable
cut pieces of the unit of fruit are retrievable by a user.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-003003
Application 13/345,293
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rich US 6,508,257 B1 Jan. 21,2003
Phebus US 2003/0047087 A1 Mar. 13,2003
Ascari US 2004/0025716 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
Torrisi US 2009/0301318 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 37, 39, 40, and 45—56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ascari. Non-Final Act. 3.
(II) Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ascari and Rich. Non-Final Act. 9.
(III) Claims 41—44 and 62—66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ascari and Phebus. Non-Final Act. 10.
(IV) Claims 57—61, 101, and 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ascari and Torrisi. Non-Final Act. 13.
OPINION
Finding that Ascari anticipates claim 37, the Examiner states, “Ascari
discloses ... a drive assembly (14—17 and 20,fig.6) including a lance
(tubular tool 33, figs. 12 and 13 or pliers 22, fig. 7) located within the
housing and aligned with the first axis.” Non-Final Act. 3^4. Thus, the
Examiner finds that in Ascari, either tubular tool 33 or pliers 22 qualifies as
the lance recited in claim 37.
3
Appeal 2016-003003
Application 13/345,293
Appellants contend that tubular tool 33 is not reciprocally movable.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellants also contend that pliers 22 merely grips a fruit
(pear), and does not impale it. Id. at 8—9. Thus, according to Appellants,
neither tubular tool 33 nor pliers 22 qualifies as a lance that is rotatable
about the first axis and reciprocally movable along the first axis relative to
the cup assembly. Id.
In response, the Examiner states:
[T]he Ascari reference in fig.7 clearly shows a lance (pliers 22)
being rotatable about the first axis and reciprocally movable
along the first axis relative to the cup assembly such that the
lance (pliers 22) is operable to impale the unit of fruit (pear 7)
and retain the unit of fruit (pear 7) while in the housing.
Ans. 4 (underlining added).
A preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s
finding supra. The Examiner’s reference to Figures 6 and 7 provides no
indication that pliers 22 impale the pear handled in Ascari’s apparatus. To
the extent Ascari describes the function of pliers 22, it is to say that they
position the pear and drop it into a container. See Ascari || 26, 61. Nor
does Figure 7 of Ascari depict pliers 22 as impaling pear 7. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 and claims 39, 40, and 45—56
depending therefrom as anticipated by Ascari.
Rejections (II) (IV)
The Examiner’s use of Rich, Phebus, and Torrisi does not remedy the
deficiency in Rejection (I) discussed above. Accordingly, we reverse these
rejections for the same reasons. Non-Final Act. 9—15.
4
Appeal 2016-003003
Application 13/345,293
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 37—66, 101, and 102 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5