Laurent, Mathilde et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2020

13990303 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2020)

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.
13/990,303 05/29/2013 Mathilde Laurent 415896US99PCT 1075
22850 7590 04/02/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ROSARIO-APONTE, ALBA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2020 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATHILDE LAURENT, RENE GY,
STEPHANIE PELLETIER, and GAELLE FERRIZ
Appeal 2018-007414
Application 13/990,303
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–16. Claim 16 is the sole independent
claim and claim 1 was canceled during prosecution. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eurokera S.N.C.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007414
Application 13/990,303
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to the field of induction cooking devices.”
Spec. 1. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
16. An induction cooking device, comprising:
an inductor; and
a thermally or chemically strengthened glass plate,
wherein a glass of the glass plate is a lithium
aluminosilicate,
wherein the inductor is positioned under the glass plate,
wherein the device is suitable for operation at 390°C,
wherein the glass plate does not break when the device
operates at 390°C to boil 200 mL of water and for 15 minutes
afterward, and
the device does not comprise a Si3N4 coating deposited on
the glass plate.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Posset
Remund
Siebers
Kwon
GB 2 079 119 A
EP 0 629 820 A2
US 2005/0250639 A1
US 2010/0089606 A1
Jan. 13, 1982
Sept. 23, 1993
Nov. 10, 2005
Apr. 15, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claim 11 stands rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over co-pending application 14/114,673,
Siebers, and Kwon. Ans. 2.
Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12–14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Remund and Siebers. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2018-007414
Application 13/990,303
3
Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Remund, Siebers, and Posset. Ans. 8.
Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Remund, Siebers, and Kwon. Ans. 9.
OPINION
Double Patenting
The Examiner’s rejection states that numerous things are missing
from the co-pending application, including the type of glass, operating
temperatures, and other properties. Ans. 3. Given that the co-pending
application is an entirely different type of glass than that claimed, we agree
that “the present claims do not represent any type of term extension of the”
claims of the co-pending application and that “this situation is not
appropriate for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.” Appeal Br.
8. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
Obviousness
Appellant argues the claims subject to the rejection over Remund and
Siebers as a group, except for claim 3, which is argued separately. Appeal
Br. 4–8. We select claim 16 as representative and the remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 16. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is
improper because Remund “leads to the use of ceramic materials as well as
the expectation that only ceramic materials can be used” in induction
cooking devices. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also argues that “Siebers does not
compensate for Remund’s deficiencies.” Id. (emphasis removed). Lastly,
Appellant argues that “[n]othing in Siebers would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to modify Remund by replacing
its ceramic plate with Siebers’ plate.” Id. (emphasis removed).
Appeal 2018-007414
Application 13/990,303
4
We disagree with Appellant. First, although not directly included in
the rejection, Appellant’s own Specification acknowledges that Posset
sought to replace ceramized glass with tempered glass plates, including
using aluminosilicate glass, but simply could not find a suitable type of glass
to achieve a successful device. Spec. 1. Accordingly, it was already known
in the art that there may be suitable tempered glass plates that could work as
a replacement for ceramized glass. As such, neither Siebers nor Remund
need provide the motivation as it already existed as of the time of Posset.
Furthermore, although Siebers is used for a different application,
Appellant does not assert that it does not otherwise meet the limitations in
claim 16. Essentially, Appellant’s claim is a laundry list of properties that
would appear to make a glass appropriate for use in induction cooking.
Appellant does not assert that any of these properties were specifically
discovered by Appellant and generally the properties merely refer to
operating characteristics of cooking devices such as operating temperature
and a boil test. Appellant points out that Siebers’ glass is “designed to break
into a large number of fragments lacking sharp edge[s],” is “6–15mm in
thickness,” and “is designed to withstand different stresses than the glass
plates of the present invention.” Appeal Br. 6. Despite the discussion of
Siebers’ breakage, Appellant does not assert that it would not meet the
limitation of not breaking according to the claimed boiling test, so
presumably, the breakage is not an issue and the benefit of being safety glass
would still apply if the device were to break outside of normal operating
conditions.
As to claim 3, Appellant asserts that the “asserted art would not lead
to lithium aluminosilicate plates having these specific characteristics.”
Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner, however, points out that Siebers does indeed
Appeal 2018-007414
Application 13/990,303
5
teach that its glass may be no thicker than the claimed 4.5 mm in that
Siebers teaches glass as thin as 3mm. Ans. 14 (citing Siebers ¶ 54).
Posset
Appellant’s only argument against the further inclusion of Posset is
that Posset “would not motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to deviate
from Remund’s ceramic materials.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis removed). As
noted above, we disagree that Posset would not motivate one to deviate from
Remund’s materials, because Posset specifically was directed to deviating
from using ceramized glass as taught in Remund.
Kwon
As to Kwon, Appellant merely asserts that Kwon teaches a different
type of glass that meets the c/a values found in claims 8 and 11. Appeal Br.
7. The Examiner, however, merely points out that Siebers is silent regarding
the c/a value and that Kwon’s soda-lime-silica glass meets the value and
“(the strength and scratch resistance of Siebers lithium aluminosilicate glass
is higher than the soda-lime glass)” such that “the c/a value of lithium
aluminosilicate should be less than the soda-lime glass of Kwon.” Ans. 15.
Appellant does not specifically rebut the Examiner’s finding that Siebers
does, therefore, teach glass having the claimed c/a value. As such, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 11.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
More specifically,
Appeal 2018-007414
Application 13/990,303
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11 Double Patenting 11
2, 3, 5–7, 9,
10, 12–14,
16
103 Remund, Siebers 2, 3, 5–7,
9, 10, 12–
14, 16

4, 15 103 Remund, Siebers,
Posset
4, 15
8, 11 103 Remund, Siebers,
Kwon
8, 11
Overall
Outcome:
2–16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED