Breville USA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

14789414 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
14/789,414 07/01/2015 Christopher Charles Young 140223.401 2539
500 7590 09/02/2020
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
GRANT, MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CHARLES YOUNG, DOUGLAS BALDWIN,
MICHAEL NATKIN, and NELSON TIMOTHY SALAZAR
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEVIN F. TURNER, and BRETT C. MARTIN,
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 1–5, 9 –16, 18–33, and 35–40. Claims
6–8, 17, and 34 were canceled during prosecution. App. Br. 38, 40, and 46.
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 ChefSteps, Inc..
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to food preparation, and in particular relates
to providing food preparation instruction via computing devices.” Spec. 1,
ll. 5–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of operation in a processor-based food
preparation guidance system, the method comprising:
receiving, via a communications device, a request for
preparation guidance for a food product;
in response to the received request, causing at least one
of a first set of at least two graphical prompts to be displayed by
the communications device,
wherein each of the graphical prompts in the first
set of at least two graphical prompts includes an image or
video of the food product after cooking the food product,
wherein each image or video depicts a different
gradation of at least one first characteristic of the food
product;
receiving, via the communications device, a selection of
one of the gradations of the at least one first characteristic of the
food product;
in response to receiving the selection of one of the
gradations of the at least one first characteristic of the food
product, causing at least one of a second set of at least two
graphical prompts to be displayed by the communications
device based at least in part on the received selection of one of
the gradations of the at least one first characteristic of the food
product,
wherein each of the graphical prompts in the
second set of at least two graphical prompts depicts a
different gradation of at least one second characteristic of
the food product;
receiving, via the communications device, a selection of
one of the gradations of the at least one second characteristic of
the food product;
determining at least one food preparation parameter for
the food product based at least in part on the received selections
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
3
of one of the gradations of the at least one first characteristic
and one of the gradations of the at least one second
characteristic of the food product; and
sending the at least one food preparation parameter to a
cooking device,
wherein the cooking device is configured to
automatically cook the food product based at least
in part on the at least one food preparation
parameter.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Anderson US 2010/0147823 A1 June 17, 2010
Koether US 2010/0313768 A1 Dec. 16, 2010
Kuempel US 2014/0314921 A1 Oct. 23, 2014
Hoare US 2015/0257574 A1 Sept. 17, 2015

L. R. Kasper, “There’s more than one way to cook an egg. Dave Arnold has
11,” The Splendid Table, April 16, 2013.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 9–11, 13–16, 18–33, and 35–40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hoare, Kuempel, Anderson, and Koether.
Final Act. 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hoare, Kuempel, Koether, and Kasper. Final Act. 10.
OPINION
Obviousness
Although Appellant provides separate headings for various claims,
Appellant generally relies on its argument with respect to claim 18 and does
not separately argue the other claims. Claim 18 is generally similar to claim
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
4
1 except that instead of requiring still images or video in the alternative, it
specifically requires video. As such, all the claims not argued separately
stand or fall with our disposition of claim 18. Appellant argues only claim
12 separately, which we address separately below.
In general, Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 18 are directed
toward combinations not set forth by the Examiner. Appellant essentially
takes the references and the features being used by the Examiner and then
combines them in ways not proposed by the Examiner and then argues that
those combinations are improper or omit certain claim limitations. When
the Examiner’s combination is properly assessed as actually made by the
Examiner, the features being combined amount to a coherent combination
that meets all of the claim limitations.
For example, in the Reply, Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s
rationale for rejecting the claims is compatible with [certain] claim features.”
Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues that “because the cooking device [of Hoare]
already determines the ‘food preparation parameter,’ it cannot additionally
‘send the at least one food preparation parameter’ to itself.” Id. Appellant’s
argument misstates the actual combination made by the Examiner. Hoare
teaches a unitary device with a screen that allows a user to select certain
parameters in order for the device to cook the food. The Examiner’s
combination is to utilize a mobile device of the type disclosed in Kuempel
instead of Hoare’s built-in screen to select the parameter, thereby
necessitating communication of the user’s selection(s) from the mobile
device to the cooking device. Thus, in the Examiner’s combination, the
claimed limitation is met. Because Appellant’s arguments are not consistent
with the rejection actually set forth by the Examiner, we do not find this
argument persuasive.
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
5
Similarly, Appellant criticizes the Examiner’s combination because
Hoare’s display “is an ‘alpha numeric display’ – not a display capable of or
configured for displaying images or videos.” App. Br. 21 (emphasis in
original). Again, appellant mischaracterizes the rejection. The Examiner is
not simply importing features of Kuempel into the display of Hoare, but is
essentially replacing Hoare’s display with the mobile device disclosed in
Kuempel. As such, it does not matter for the combination what capabilities
Hoare’s display does or does not have because the Examiner is using
Kuempel for the claimed display.
Appellant also asserts that “Kuempel teaches away from allowing user
input (via a display or otherwise) regarding a coffee brewing process.” App.
Br. 22. This is allegedly so because Kuempel “functions to set and control
brewing parameters for a coffee bean based on a predetermined coffee recipe
to enable accurate and repeatable replication of a coffee experience, such as
defined by a coffee roaster supplying the coffee bean.” Id. (citing Kuempel,
¶13, emphasis added by Appellant). Yet again, this argument
mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner only uses
Kuempel for teaching the use of a mobile device operable by a user to send
instructions to the cooking device. The Examiner is not importing all of the
features specific to Kuempel’s attempt to limit brewing to those preferred by
the roaster, just the general aspect of using a mobile device as the interface.
Because this argument does not actually address the Examiner’s
combination, we find it unpersuasive.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s motivation amounts to
impermissible hindsight reconstruction. App. Br. 24. Appellant further
argues that “Hoare and Anderson teach that static images and text are
sufficient and provide no indication of a need for more” and that “nowhere
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
6
does Koether disclose or suggest selecting a desired doneness, let alone that
the still photos or short videos depict different gradations of a characteristic
of a food product after cooking the food product.” Id. Here, Appellant
attacks the references individually rather than addressing the Examiner’s
combination as a whole. As Appellant appears to admit, the combination of
Hoare and Anderson teaches static images and text for showing a user a
level of doneness. Id. The Examiner only uses Koether for the additional
disclosure that videos are an acceptable alternative to still images and relies
upon Anderson for teaching a visual representation of doneness provided to
the user. Accordingly, Koether need not specifically teach how the video is
being used as asserted by Appellant. Appellant’s additional arguments
regarding Koether likewise attack Koether for not teaching the specific
content of the video when the Examiner utilizes Anderson for the teaching
of the content. App. Br. 24 – 25. As such, we find these arguments
unpersuasive.
Lastly, Appellant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of
success for the Examiner’s combination because there are 12,870 different
combinations among Hoare and Kuempel alone. We do not find this
argument persuasive because it does not address how the Examiner arrived
at the proposed combination. Again, the Examiner utilizes Hoare for the
majority of the claim elements and only replaces the built-in display with
separate mobile display of Kuempel. The Examiner then uses Anderson for
teaching that images rather than text can be used to show a desired level of
doneness as claimed in, for example, claim 1. Lastly the Examiner uses
Koether for teaching the interchangeability of still images and video while
still relying on Anderson for the content of the image/video. Each of these
alterations flows naturally from the prior art and each change is
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
7
encompassed in the teaching of the prior art without relying on Appellant’s
Specification. “Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 1313–1314. Here, the Examiner has only
taken into account knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art and
has not, as Appellant asserts, used Appellant’s Specification as a road map.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 12, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s use of
Kasper2 is in error because Kasper “merely details characteristics of eggs
cooked in a water bath at different temperatures for one hour.” App. Br. 33.
Although this is true, Kasper discloses various images of doneness of both
the yolk and white of an egg cooked at different temperatures. Taking this
information as a whole, Kasper teaches the relation between the various
levels of doneness of both yolk and white and relates them to each other
along the temperature scale. In this manner, one of skill in the art would
understand that the doneness of the yolk is dependent on the doneness of the
white (or vice versa), thus providing the claimed first and second
characteristics of the doneness of an egg. We agree with the Examiner that
Kasper teaches “that certain high and low temperatures necessarily result[]
in certain textures of white and yolk for an egg cooked, e.g., in a sous vide
machine” and that “it would have been obvious to have incorporated the

2 The Examiner, and thus, Appellant, refer to this as the Arnold reference,
but the author is Kasper and as such, using normal convention, we refer to it
as “Kasper.”
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
8
teaching of [Kasper] into the system taught by the….cited prior art by e.g.,
limiting what texture of white selection that could be made based on the
user’s initial selection of the yolk texture, so as to provide the user with a
cooked egg closest to his or her desired textures.” Ans. 10, 11. The
Examiner is also correct that Kasper teaches “that by choosing a certain
temperature to which to cook the yolk of egg that necessarily restricts the
textures of the white that can result.” Ans. 12.
Appellant further argues that “the Examiner fails to articulate how the
applied references disclose or suggest limiting a subsequent selection of a
gradation of a second characteristic of a food product by providing that ‘only
a subset of the images or videos in [a] second set of images or videos are
displayable.’” App. Br. 34. We agree with the Examiner, however, that “the
limitation ‘subset’ does not necessarily require the exclusion of any of the
video from being displayed[,] it only requires that the videos to potentially
display[] are the ones chosen from a certain set of videos” and that “[i]n this
case, meaning that the selection from the first set of videos could not be used
to augment the second set of videos.” Ans. 13. In other words, Appellant
applies too narrow a restriction to the claimed subset that is not actually
present in the claims. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically,
Appeal 2020-000354
Application 14/789,414
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9–11,
13–16, 18–
33, 35–40
103 Hoare, Kuempel,
Anderson, Koether
1–5, 9–11,
13–16, 18–
33, 35–40

12 103 Hoare, Kuempel,
Anderson,
Koether, Kasper
12
1–5, 9–16,
18–33, 35–
40
1–5, 9–16,
18–33, 35–
40

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