SharkNinja Operating LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2021

2021002124 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2021)

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.
16/357,175 03/18/2019 Aaron Michael Gill 057664-184C02US 7589
177399 7590 10/22/2021
Mintz Levin/SharkNinja
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2021 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
mintzdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AARON MICHAEL GILL, ROSS RICHARDSON,
NAOMI KALIA WILLIAMS ZABEL, DA DENG,
METE GURSEL, ANDREW JOHN ROY TATTERSFIELD,
NIALL CHRISTOPHER DENHAM, ROGER NEIL JACKSON,
RONAN PATRICK LEAHY, EVAN JAMES WHITE,
THOMAS GUERIN, CHRIS MARTIN,
NATHANIEL R. LAVINS, MACKENZIE LEE SWANHART,
SAMUEL ANDREW FERGUSON, and
SCOTT JAMES STEWART

Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–28. Claim 5 is canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a cooking system for cooking food.
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A cooking system for cooking food, the system comprising:
a housing defining a hollow chamber configured to receive a
food container, said housing having an upper portion defining
an opening to said hollow chamber;
a lid configured to cover said upper portion of said housing and
said opening to said hollow chamber in a closed position, said
lid being moveable to an open position where said lid does not
cover said opening to said hollow chamber;
at least one heating element associated with at least one of said
housing and said lid;
wherein said cooking system is operable in a plurality of modes
including a pressure cooking mode and a convective cooking
mode, wherein in said pressure cooking mode the cooking
system is operable as a pressure cooker and in said convective
cooking mode the cooking system is operable as a convection
cooker, and
wherein in said pressure mode, the cooking system reaches a
pressure of at least 40 kPa.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 16–26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Harrison (US 5,526,734, issued June 18, 1996) in
view of Storek (US 2014/0199454 A1, published July 17, 2014);
(ii) claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Harrison in view of Storek and Moon (US 2004/0035845 A1, published Feb.
26, 2004); and
(iii) claims 3, 13–15, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harrison in view of Storek and Park (US 2015/0313399
A1, published Nov. 5, 2015).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 16–26, and 28--§ 103--Harrison/Storek
The Examiner finds that Harrison discloses most of the limitations
recited in claim 1, including that the cooking system is operable in a
plurality of modes, one of which is a pressure cooking mode, but fails to
disclose that the cooking system reaches a pressure of at least 40 kPa in its
pressure cooking mode. Final Act. 3, 7. The Examiner references Storek as
disclosing cooking in a pressure cooking mode in which a pressure of at
least 40 kPa is attained, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
have modified Harrison “as suggested and taught by Storek in order for
cooking times to be reduced up to 70% while preserving nutrients and
coloration of food to be cooked.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Storek
Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

4
¶¶ 25–30).2
Appellant principally counters that “Harrison repeatedly teaches
against pressure cooking of any kind, and would be rendered inoperable (and
likely dangerous) if such pressures of 40 kPa or more were reached in the
Harrison device.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant points to a disclosure in
Harrison that its cover is not to be clamped to its housing “to avoid a
potentially dangerous build-up of pressure in the bagel cooker interior,” and
further that gases generated by the boiling of water in the boiling mode used
first in the bagel cooking process “have the potential of causing a potentially
dangerous buildup of pressure” which “is avoided by a vent system.” Id.
(emphasis omitted) (quoting Harrison, col. 2, ll. 43–45 and col. 3, ll. 42–45).
Appellant avers that these passages evidence that Harrison actively teaches
avoiding pressure buildup, which is necessary to allow pressure cooking at
at least 40 kPa, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner responds to the effect that both Harrison and Storek
teach venting to avoid potentially dangerous buildups of pressure, and thus
Harrison and Storek are “readily compatible in combination.” Ans. 4.
The Examiner’s position is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Storek discloses that its cooker may be designed to resist pressure
and temperature so that a pressure cooking mode in which a pressure
buildup in the range of 5–30 psi3 or more may be employed, in order to, as
the Examiner notes, reduce cooking times without degrading the nutritional
content or coloration of the food. Storek ¶ 30. Storek also describes, as

2 We note that the Examiner does not propose any specific modification to
Harrison in order to render its cooker capable of operating in a pressure
cooking mode in which the pressure is at least 40 kPa.
3 The 40 kPa value recited in claim 1 is approximately equal to 5.8 psi.
Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

5
noted by the Examiner, that in concert with its pressure cooking mode, a gas
outlet may be provided to avoid pressure build-up or excessive steam build-
up, but also “keep[s] gas inside the apparatus 100 to speed up the cooking
process.” Id. ¶¶ 30, 44. The person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize from these disclosures that Storek’s pressure cooking involves
allowing pressure to build up in the cooker to a desired level, above which
gases are vented to prevent overpressurization. That Storek teaches venting
in this respect has little to nothing to do with Harrison’s teaching that any
pressure buildup is seen as being potentially dangerous and is to be avoided.
See Reply Br. 2 (“Harrison repeatedly teaches against building any
pressure”) (emphasis omitted).
Harrison includes no disclosure that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would consider to be operating its cooker in a pressure cooking mode,
contrary to the Examiner’s initial finding that such a mode is disclosed. The
passages cited by Appellant regarding avoidance of pressure buildup and the
discussion that the lid in Harrison is not to be clamped, as well as the
description of the venting system as essentially being an unrestricted conduit
open to atmosphere (see Harrison Fig. 5 and col. 3, ll. 41–55), are all
indicative that Harrison takes specific measures to avoid using a pressure
cooking mode in which an elevated pressure is achieved within the cooker.4
Thus, the Examiner’s position that a modification to achieve the same would

4 Given that pressure cookers and cooking under pressure in general have
long been known in the art, and are generally safe when the cooker is
operated properly, we surmise that Harrison’s reasons for eschewing
cooking with pressure buildup (see unrestricted vent system 110) are likely
related to providing a safer cooking environment in a household appliance
and/or particularly to the proper cooking of bagels.
Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

6
have been obvious goes against the very teachings of Harrison.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Harrison and Storek is not sustained. Claims 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 16–26, and 28
depend from claim 1, and the rejection is not sustained as to these claims for
the same reasons discussed above.

Claim 11--§ 103--Harrison/Storek/Moon
Claim 11 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on
Moon in any manner that overcomes the deficiencies of the rejection of
claim 1 as being unpatentable over Harrison and Storek. The rejection is not
sustained.

Claims 3, 13–15, and 27--§ 103--Harrison/Storek/Park
Claims 3 and 13–15 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not
rely on Park in any manner that overcomes the deficiencies of the rejection
of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Harrison and Storek. The rejection is
not sustained as to claims 3 and 13–15.
Claim 27 is independent, and does not include the main limitation at
issue in the rejection of claim 1, i.e., that the cooking system operates at a
pressure of at least 40 kPa in its pressure cooking mode. Claim 27 instead
recites that the cooking system included first and second lids, and that,
during its pressure cooking mode, the second lid is affixable to the housing
in a locked arrangement. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner’s findings relative to Harrison and Storek appear to
acknowledge that neither discloses a first and a second lid, nor that a second
lid is affixable to the housing in a locked arrangement for the pressure
Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

7
cooking mode. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner relies on Park as disclosing
first and second lids, and employing the second lid in a locked arrangement
with a housing during a pressure cooking mode, and concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the Harrison cooker as modified by Storek, “as
suggested . . . by Park in order to provide a cooking system that is versatile
and operable with one or more lids such that one lid may be removed for
cleaning while the system is operable with another lid.” Id. at 11–12.
Appellant’s arguments are generally the same as those for claim 1,
i.e., that the modifications proposed by the Examiner to make the Harrison
cooker operable in a pressure cooking mode are directly taught against by
Harrison. Appeal Br. 12–13. According to Appellant, the proposal to
include a lid that locks to the housing during a pressure cooking mode, as
purportedly taught by Park, runs afoul of the express disclosure in Harrison
that the cover/lid is not to be clamped to the housing so as to avoid buildup
of pressure in its bagel cooker. Id. at 12.
The Examiner acknowledges that Harrison teaches against clamping
the cover to the casing, but appears to take the position that the teaching in
Park of locking a lid to a housing is somehow different. Ans. 5. Appellant
replies that the clamping of the cover/lid to the housing discussed in
Harrison is a form of locking, and that the Examiner’s proposal to modify
Harrison to have a locking lid would result in the potentially dangerous
buildup of pressure that Harrison expressly seeks to avoid. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant again has the better position here. For essentially the same
reasons why the modification of Harrison in view of Storek has not been
shown to have been obvious, so, too, the proposal to modify Harrison to
have a locking lid for use in a pressure cooking mode has not been
Appeal 2021-002124
Application 16/357,175

8
adequately shown to have been obvious.
The rejection of claim 27 as being unpatentable over Harrison, Storek,
and Park is not sustained.

CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–
10, 12,
16–26, 28
103 Harrison, Storek 1, 2, 4, 6–
10, 12, 16–
26, 28
11 103 Harrison, Storek,
Moon
11
3, 13–15,
27
103 Harrison, Storek,
Park
3, 13–15,
27
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–28

REVERSED