13477116 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

Ex Parte van Opstal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2018

13477116 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/477,116 05/22/2012 100612 7590 12/21/2018 Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP KO 999 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Edwin Petrus Elisabeth van Opstal 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. 25040-4231 4964 EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2018 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): patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWIN PETRUS ELISABETH VAN OPST AL, SIMON ANDREW ENGLISH and KENNETH HENG-CHONG NG Appeal2017-005863 Application 13/477,116 Technology Center 3700 Before STEVEND.A. McCARTHY, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's 2 decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as 3 being unpatentable over DiBella-Lenaway (US 2011/0163127 Al, publ. July 4 7, 2011) and Karkos (US 2003/0197080 Al, publ. Oct. 23, 2003) (Final 5 Office Action, mailed Oct. 11, 2016 ("Final Act."), at 2); claims 1, 6, 11, 13, 6 14, 16 and 21 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over van Opstal (US 7 2007/0267441 Al, publ. Nov. 22, 2007) and Karkos (Final Act. 4); and 8 claims 2--4 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over van Opstal, Karkos The Appellants identify the Coca-Cola Company as the real party in interest. (See Appeal Brief, dated Dec. 15, 2016, at 2). Appeal2017-005863 Application 13/477,116 1 and Rudick (US 4,753,370, issued June 28, 1988) (Final Act. 5). Claims 8, 2 10, 12, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base 3 claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all 4 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 is 5 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 7, 9, 15 and 17-19 are cancelled. 6 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). 7 We REVERSE. 8 Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 9 1. An ingredient mixing module for mixing a number 10 of ingredients, comprising: 11 a stationary mixing chamber; 12 a plurality of entry ports positioned about the stationary 13 mixing chamber; 14 a mixer positioned within the stationary mixing chamber; 15 a brushless motor positioned about the stationary mixing 16 chamber so as to drive the mixer; 1 7 wherein the mixer comprises a rotor of the brushless 18 motor; 19 wherein the rotor is within the stationary mixing chamber 20 in contact with the number of ingredients therein; 21 wherein the mixer comprises a plurality of permanent 22 magnets of the brushless motor; and 23 wherein the brushless motor comprises a stator positioned 24 outside of the stationary mixing chamber without a mechanical 25 connection to the rotor; and 26 a nozzle downstream of the stationary mixing chamber. 27 (App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix)). Claim 16 likewise recites an ingredient 28 mixing module wherein the mixer comprises a rotor of the brushless motor. 2 Appeal2017-005863 Application 13/477,116 1 DiBella-Lenaway describes a beverage apparatus 10 including a 2 mixing chamber 18 in which water and a powder are mixed to produce 3 infant formula. (See DiBella-Lenaway, para. 29). An agitator 60 residing in 4 the mixing chamber 18 mounts a magnet arrangement 69. An agitator motor 5 68 affixed beneath the mixing chamber 18 has a rotor (no reference numeral) 6 mounting its own magnet arrangement 69. The two magnet arrangements 69 7 are magnetically coupled to permit the agitator motor 68 to rotate the 8 agitator 60 within the mixing chamber 18 without a mechanical coupling 9 between the agitator 60 and the rotor of the agitator motor 68. (See DiBella- 10 Lenaway, para. 33 & Fig. 1). 11 Van Opstal describes a mixing module 210 for combining water, 12 macro-ingredients and micro-ingredients to produce a beverage. A mixer 13 700 in the form of an agitator resides in a mixing chamber 690 of the mixing 14 module 210. A DC motor/gear combination 710, depicted in Figures 12 and 15 13 seated above the mixing module 210, drives the agitator by means of a 16 shaft extending through the upper end of the mixing module 210. (See van 1 7 Opstal, paras. 66-68). 18 Karkos describes a blender/ice shaver machine 10. When the machine 19 is operated, shaved ice is combined with liquid ingredients in a blender cup 20 22 seated on a base 50 of the machine to produce frozen drinks. The 21 machine 10 includes an impeller 24 mounted on a shaft 78 that extends into 22 the blender cup 22 to mix the ingredients. A generally circular drive plate 23 34 is affixed to the shaft 78. (See Karkos, para. 39 & 48; see id., Fig. 4). 24 The machine 10 also includes a brushless DC motor 2 8 including stator coils 25 30 and a rotor 32. The rotor mounts ring magnets 36, 38. The ring magnet 26 36 interacts with the stator coils 30 to tum the rotor 32 and the ring magnet 3 Appeal2017-005863 Application 13/477,116 1 38. The ring magnet 38 is magnetically coupled to drive plate 34 through a 2 lower wall 22b of the blender cup 22 and an upper wall portion 50a of a base 3 50 of the machine 10 to rotate the shaft 78 and the impeller 24 within the 4 blender cup 22 without the rotor 32 extending into the blender cup. (See 5 Karkos, paras. 40, 42, 45 & 56; see id., Fig. 4). 6 Rudick describes a beverage dispenser including a nozzle Nin which 7 sweetener, unsweetened syrup and water are mixed to produce a beverage. 8 (See Rudick, col. 3, 11. 52-58). The nozzle N, as depicted in Figure 2, lacks 9 both an agitator and an agitator motor. 10 None of these references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests 11 "wherein the mixer comprises a rotor of the brushless motor;" and further 12 wherein the "mixer [is] positioned within the stationary mixing chamber" as 13 recited in claims 1 and 16. (See Appeal Brief, dated Dec. 15, 2016, at 7). 14 DiBella-Lanaway and Karkos, in particular, describe magnetic couplings 15 that permit their respective motors to tum agitators within mixing spaces so 16 that the rotors of the respective motors need not extend themselves into the 1 7 m1xmg spaces. 18 Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 21 19 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over DiBella-Lenaway and Karkos; the 20 rejectionofclaims 1,6, 11, 13, 14, 16and21 underÂ§ 103(a)asbeing 21 unpatentable over van Opstal and Karkos; or the rejection of claims 2--4 22 underÂ§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over van Opstal, Karkos and Rudick. 23 24 DECISION 25 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 11, 26 13, 14, 16 and 21. 4 Appeal2017-005863 Application 13/477,116 REVERSED 5