Rational Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2020

2019005154 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 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.
14/415,272 01/16/2015 Peter Wiedemann PRINZ R1875 3135
26812 7590 08/12/2020
HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.
175 CANAL STREET
MANCHESTER, NH 03101
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2020 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):
KStevens@hayes-soloway.com
TSULLIVAN@HAYES-SOLOWAY.COM
rchriston@hayes-soloway.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER WIEDEMANN, JANA KIRCHGAESSNER,
SASCHA BARBY, GERD FUNK, TORSTEN BRINKMANN,
BRUNO MAAS, FRANK MAREK, ANTON MEINDL,
WILHELM MAERZ, SONJA REICH, LEONORA MINISINI,
WOLFGANG SCHMIDBERGER, and MEIKE STELLJES
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a), Appellant1 filed a Request for
Rehearing on June 18, 2020 (“Req. Reh’g”) seeking reconsideration of our
Decision on Appeal mailed April 20, 2020 (“Dec.”). We have jurisdiction

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rational
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

2
over the Request for Rehearing under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Except for any
portion specifically withdrawn on rehearing, this Decision on Request for
Rehearing incorporates the Decision on Appeal, including any abbreviations
defined therein for citations to the record, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1).
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is granted in part.
OPINION
Background
In our Decision, we designated our affirmance of the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20 as anticipated by Anderson (US
2010/0147823 A1, published June 17, 2010) and as being obvious over the
combined teachings of Ording (US 2007/0022389 A1, published January 25,
2007) and Anderson as new grounds of rejection. Dec. 13–14. “We
designate[d] our affirmance as new grounds of rejection in order to provide
Appellant an opportunity to respond to our determination that the particular
content of the ‘cooking intelligence’ information recited in claims 1–20 is
not entitled to patentable weight” because “[t]he Examiner did not consider
the particular content of the information conveyed by ‘cooking intelligence’
to be printed matter when rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
103.” Id. at 13. Appellant requests rehearing of that determination, as well
as other issues that were not raised in the underlying appeal. Req. Reh’g 1–
18.
A request for rehearing is limited to matters overlooked or
misapprehended by the Panel in rendering the original decision. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.52. New arguments are generally not permitted, but “[n]ew
arguments responding to a new ground of rejection designated pursuant to
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

3
§ 41.50(b) are permitted.” Id. We consider Appellant’s new arguments
because we entered a new ground of rejection.
Cooking Intelligence
Claim 1 relates to a method of displaying information, and recites:
1. A method of displaying parameters of a cooking process,
the method comprising the steps of displaying [an] information
window within an indicating window and displaying a cooking
intelligence applied temporarily in said information window.
Claim 11 relates to a display device that displays certain information,
and recites:
11. A cooking appliance display device in which various
parameters and steps of a cooking process are displayed and
made available to an operator for interaction, wherein an
information window is provided within an indicating window
and currently applied cooking intelligence is displayed in said
information window.
For brevity, we will not repeat our analysis explaining why “cooking
intelligence” is not entitled to patentable weight. See Dec. 8–13 (addressing
“cooking intelligence”). Rather, we will address Appellant’s rebuttal of that
analysis.
Appellant contends that the recited “cooking intelligence” is
functionally related to the information window, and alleges that “functional
relationship of the applied cooking intelligence to the information window is
similar to the device at issue in Miller[2].” Req. Reh’g 7. Appellant explains
that, in Miller, “[w]ithout the legend and indicia, the measuring device
would not serve its purpose as a fractional measuring device of

2 In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1969).
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

4
communicating functional measuring fractions.” Id. Appellant contends
that “[h]ere, the claimed ‘cooking intelligence’ likewise has a functional
relationship with the substrate, the information window (of the cooking
appliance display device)” because “[w]ithout the use of cooking
intelligence, the information window loses any purpose to displaying to a
user planned, currently applied, and previously applied alterations made to
the cooking process underway.” Id. at 7–8. Appellant’s contention is not
persuasive.
Unlike Miller, where the volumetric indicia on the side of a cup
created a specialized measuring cup, the type of information displayed in the
recited “indicating window” does not create any new functionality for that
window. Rather, the displayed information (“cooking intelligence”), simply
informs a user of details related to the cooking process without further
interaction with the indicating window (or cooking device). Indeed,
Appellant admits as much, acknowledging that “[i]f the user is preparing
other items in parallel with the expectation of completing all of the cooking
concurrently, adding time without notice is a problem that frustrates meal
preparation,” and “if the user intended for the food to cook exactly as
instructed, altering any of the programmed cooking parameters without
notice would be undesirable.” Req. Reh’g 6. Appellant characterizes this as
a “unique problem,” with “[t]he solution . . . addressed by the claimed
invention, which is directed to an information window [within a cooking
appliance display device] ( the ‘substrate’) that displays the applied cooking
intelligence (the ‘printed matter’).” Id. The cooking device operates and is
used the same, however, regardless of what information is displayed.
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

5
Appellant additionally contends that “[i]n addition to the functional
relationship the claimed cooking intelligence has with the information
window, the claimed display of cooking intelligence necessarily requires an
underlying functional cooking intelligence that is not printed matter.” Req.
Reh’g 10. Appellant contends that “[m]odification of a cooking parameter is
an inherent requirement of the claimed cooking intelligence,” and “[w]ithout
an underlying functional cooking intelligence altering the cooking process
(where such alteration can rightfully be described as performing a function),
there would be no change in a cooking parameter to display to the user.” Id.
This, too, is unpersuasive.
As noted above, claim 1 recites “[a] method of displaying” and claim
11 recites “[a] cooking appliance display device.” The specific steps of
altering cooking operation using “cooking intelligence” are not recited in
either claim, and we do not read the claims as having such an “inherent
requirement.”
Appellant additionally contends that “[t]he functional relationship of
the claimed cooking intelligence to the information window recited in the
independent claims is further evident from dependent claims 7–9 and 17–
19.” Req. Reh’g 9. Other than repeating the claim language, Appellant
contends that “[a]s explained above, the ‘at least one parameter of said
cooking process’ is altered or manipulated by the applied cooking
intelligence and that alteration results in a different display position of the
information window.” Id. Claim 7, for example, recites that “said
information window is displayed at different positions within said indicating
window as a function of at least one parameter of said cooking process.”
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

6
There is no reference to the “cooking intelligence” in the claim. These
contentions do not identify error in the rejection of claims 7–9 and 17–19.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, and claim 13, which depends
from claim 11, each recite that “a temporarily applied cooking intelligence is
visually linked to a cooking process parameter which is displayed in said
information window and which is being influenced by said cooking
intelligence.” Appellant contends that “[t]he ‘applied cooking intelligence’
influencing the cooking process parameter is not printed matter” and “[t]he
cooking parameter ‘being influenced by said cooking intelligence’ is not
printed matter.” Req. Reh’g 11; see also id. at 12. Again, Appellant appears
to be reading in a step of a cooking process into the claims when the claims
are, instead, simply directed to displaying information about a cooking
process that, like in claims 1 and 11, is used for nothing more than informing
a user.
Because we are not apprised of error in our determination that the
particular content of the “cooking intelligence” information recited in the
claims not entitled to patentable weight, we are also not persuaded by
Appellant’s contentions that neither Anderson nor Ording teaches “cooking
intelligence.” See Req. Reh’g 10–12.
An Information Window within an Indicating Window
Appellant contends that even if the particular content of the “cooking
intelligence” information recited in the claims is not entitled to patentable
weight, Anderson fails to teach an information window provided within an
indicating window. Req. Reh’g 12–15. Appellant also contends that
“Ording in view of Anderson fails to disclose or fairly suggest ‘an
information window is provided within an indicating window.’” Id. at 17.
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

7
In our Decision, we explained that “[t]here is no dispute that
Anderson teaches a cooking appliance that includes a display having an
‘information window’ that is ‘within an indicating window,’ with cooking
information displayed within the ‘information window.’” Dec. 9 (citing
Appeal Br. 18). Appellant now disputes that characterization, contending
that “Appellant does dispute that Anderson teaches this subject matter.”
Req. Reh’g 12–13. Appellant contends that our “cit[ation] to page 18 of the
Appellant’s Appeal Brief” is mistaken because “[p]age 18 of the Appeal
Brief is the final page of the claims appendix” and “[n]owhere on page 18 of
the Appeal brief did Appellant concede Anderson teaches a cooking
appliance including the information and indicating windows required by
claims 1–20.” Id. at 13.
Initially, we note that page 18 of the Appeal Brief is not the Claims
Appendix, as Appellant suggests. As seen in the Table of Contents (Appeal
Br. 2), as well as in the body of the brief itself (see, e.g., id at 18, 22), page
18 discusses the anticipation rejection, and the Claims Appendix begins on
page 22. Further, our reference to page 18 of the Appeal Brief was not
intended as support for an express concession that Anderson teaches an
information window within an indicating window. Rather, that page was the
only portion of the brief addressing the structure of the display in Anderson.
Appellant did not dispute that Anderson taught such structure, but, instead,
acknowledged that “Anderson discloses an oven with a graphical user
display.” Appeal Br. 18. The only dispute is Appellant’s contention that
Anderson “fails to disclose a ‘cooking intelligence.’” Id. Notably, in its
Request for Rehearing, Appellant does not reference any particular argument
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

8
presented in the Appeal Brief related to whether Anderson teaches an
information window within an information window.
Appellant proceeds to argue, for the first time in this Request for
Rehearing, that Anderson fails to teach an information window provided
within an indicating window (Req. Reh’g 12–15) and that “Ording in view
of Anderson fails to disclose or fairly suggest ‘an information window is
provided within an indicating window’” (id. at 17). After reviewing
Appellant’s contentions, we find them unpersuasive.
Our designation of the affirmance of the Examiner’s rejections did not
change any finding related to the “information window” or the “indicating
window” recited in the claims. In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner finds
that Anderson discloses “displaying information window (e.g., windows of
display 57 and screens 104-110) within an indicating window (e.g., windows
of display 57 and screens 104-110) (e.g., Fig 1, 5A-5D and Fig 8A-9D and
para 21, 25-28 and 31-34).” Non-Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that
“[e]ach screen in Anderson is like a page in a book, where the appearance of
a new screen is like turning to the next page.” Req. Reh’g 14 (citing
Anderson ¶¶ 25–26, Figs. 5A–D). Appellant contends that “Anderson does
not disclose or otherwise fairly suggest ‘an information window is provided
within an indicating window’ as recited in claim 1 [and claim 11]” because
“[t]he screens of Anderson do not have any nesting characteristics” and
“when multiple images appear on the individual screens of Anderson, they
are confined to their own subdivisions of the screen––they are not overlaid
onto other information, now blocked by the presence of an image.” Id.
Appellant fails to apprise us what is missing from Anderson’s
disclosure. There is no dispute that Anderson includes display 57, which
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

9
includes various screens 104–110. It is unclear how Anderson’s display 57
differs from the recited “indicating window.” Claim 1 simply recites “an
information window,” without further detail. Appellant’s Specification
simply describes its “indicating window 12 [as] having three display areas
provided thereon.” Spec. 5:17–18. Claim 1 similarly lacks any detail
regarding the “information window,” other than that it is displayed “within
[the] indicating window” and displays information (i.e., “cooking
intelligence”). Appellant’s Specification simply describes information
window 20 as a portion of the display within indicating window 12. Id. at
6:1–3. Claim 11 is similar in this respect to claim 1. There is no dispute that
Anderson’s screens 104–110 are a portion of its display 57. We are apprised
of no persuasive reason as to why the “nesting” characteristics are required
by the claims as alleged by Appellant.
Dependent Claims 7–9 and 17–19
Appellant presents a number of additional contentions related to the
dependent claims that were not presented in the Appeal Brief. See Req.
Reh’g 14–15, 17–18 (presenting additional contentions related to claims 7–9
and 17–19). We address those arguments because of the designation of our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, further recites that “said
information window is displayed at different positions within said indicating
window as a function of at least one parameter of said cooking process.”
Claim 17, which depends from claim 13, includes a similar limitation.
Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7. Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim
17.
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

10
The anticipation rejection relies on a finding that Anderson’s
“information window is displayed at different positions within the indicating
window as a function of at least one parameter of the cooking process (e.g.,
Fig 1, 5A-5D and Fig 8A-9D and para 21, 25-28 and 31-34).” Non-Final
Act. 4, 6. The obviousness rejection relies on a finding that Ording’s
“information window is displayed at different positions within the indicating
window as a function of at least one parameter of the process (e.g., Fig. 3-4
and para 30-34; Fig. 1-23d and para 24-77).” Id. at 9, 11.
Appellant responds that “[n]either the windows of Ording nor the
screens of Anderson are ‘displayed at different positions’ as ‘a function of at
least one parameter of said cooking process’ as required by claims 7 and
17.” Req. Reh’g 18. Appellant contends that
the screens of Anderson are subdivided to show multiple images
at once. (See FIGS. 5A-5D). However, the screens themselves
are not ‘displayed at different positions’ nor is that position ‘a
function of at least one parameter of said cooking process.’
Rather, the screens of Anderson change the images presented on
them based on user input. (See [0024] of Anderson).
Id. at 15. Appellant contends that “the windows of Ording are overlapping
and the screens of Anderson are subdivided to show multiple images at once.
(See FIGS. 3-8 of Ording and FIGS. 5A-5D of Anderson).” Id. at 17.
Appellant contends that “[t]he windows of Ording change position due to
user input through a cursor control device. (See [0027] and [0032] of
Ording).” Id.
Appellant has the better position. We have no explanation from the
Examiner as to why the cited portions of Anderson or Ording support the
findings asserted by the Examiner. Further, after our review of the cited
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

11
portions of Anderson and Ording, it is unclear as to whether either reference
supports such a finding.
CONCLUSION
We deny Appellant’s request for rehearing regarding claims 1–6, 10–
16, and 20, but grant rehearing regarding claims 7–9 and 17–19.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7–9 and 17–19 as
anticipated and obvious is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Denied Granted
1–20 102(b) Anderson 1–6, 10–16,
20
7–9, 17–19
1–20 103(a) Ording,
Anderson
1–6, 10–16,
20
7–9, 17–19
Overall
Outcome
7–9, 17–19

Final Outcome on Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–20 112, first
paragraph
Enablement 11–20
7, 8, 11–20 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 8, 18 7, 11–20
11–20 101 Eligibility 11–20
1–20 102(b) Anderson 1–6, 10–16,
20
7–9, 17–19
1–20 103(a) Ording,
Anderson
1–6, 10–16,
20
7–9, 17–19
Appeal 2019-005154
Application 14/415,272

12
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8, 10–
16, 18, 20
7, 9, 17, 19

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).
GRANTED IN PART