Ex Parte Artal Lahoz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

13262275 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

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.
13/262,275 09/30/2011 Maria Carmen Artal Lahoz 2008P02655WOUS 7920
46726 7590 08/28/2017
RS»H Home. Annlianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIA CARMEN ARTAL LAHOZ,
JOSE-RAMON GARCIA JIMENEZ,
IGNACIO GARDE ARANDA, OSCAR LUCIA GIL,
IGNACIO MILLAN SERRANO,
DANIEL PALACIOS TOMAS, and
RAMON PEINADO ADIEGO
Appeal 2016-0052291
Application 13/262,275
Technology Center 3700
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the Final Rejection of claims 25^40. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
1 The Appellants identify BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005229
Application 13/262,275
The invention relates generally to “a cooktop having a plurality of
heating elements and a detection assembly for detecting a position and size
of at least one cookware element.” Spec. 11.
Claim 25 is illustrative:
25. A cooktop, comprising:
a plurality of heating elements;
a detection assembly which detects a measurand of a
cookware element; and
a control unit which combines a number of the plurality of
heating elements into a heating zone as a function of the detected
measurand, operates the heating elements of the heating zone
with a total surface heat output, calculates a surface area of a
bottom surface of the cookware element based on the detected
measurand, and determines the total surface heat output from the
heating elements in the heating zone and which is to be received
by the cookware element as a function of a power level input at
a user interface and the calculated surface area of the bottom
surface.
Claims 25 40 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 25—34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gouardo (US 2007/0164017 Al, pub. July 19, 2007) and
Schotten (US 6,259,069 Bl, iss. July 10, 2001).
Claims 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gouardo, Schotten, and Gerola (US 6,930,287 B2, iss.
Aug. 16, 2005).
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gouardo and Gerola.
We REVERSE.
2
Appeal 2016-005229
Application 13/262,275
ANALYSIS
Written Description Rejection
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the ordinary
artisan would recognize the claimed step that “calculates a surface area of a
bottom surface of the cookware element,” which is recited in each
independent claim, from the descriptions in paragraphs 7, 14, and 29 of the
Specification, even though the word “area” does not appear. Br. 8—10. In
contrast, the Examiner finds the omission of the word “area” dispositive,
arguing “[determining the radius of a round pot (e.g. a circular pot) to
‘calculate the bottom surface’ could seemingly be used in a mathematical
equation other than determining the surface area of a cooking pot’s bottom
surface.” Answer 5.
We are persuaded that, for the ordinary artisan, when reading about
using radius to calculate a “bottom surface” (see Spec. 129), the first thing
to come to mind is likely to be a simple surface area calculation. In addition,
though the Examiner speculates this calculation could represent a
determination other than surface area, not a single example to support this
idea is advanced. We struggle to think of a reasonable alternative that would
come to mind to the ordinary artisan, other than surface area.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 25 40 as
failing the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3
Appeal 2016-005229
Application 13/262,275
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 25—34, 36, and 37
Each of independent claims 25 and 36 each recite language
substantially equivalent to “calculating a surface area of a bottom surface of
the cookware element.”
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Schotten does not
“calculate” the surface area of the bottom surface of the cookware, because
Schotten merely detects the presence of cookware, and the Office appears to
interpret Schotten’s “detecting” as synonymous with the claimed
“calculating.” Br. 8—9.
The cited portions of Schotten, namely column 1 lines 31—37 (Final
Act. 4 and 8), disclose detection of the presence of a vessel on a cooktop, but
fail to disclose any calculation, for the following reasons.
To calculate is defined as being “to determine by mathematical
processes.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (last retrieved on
August 24, 2017 at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calculate).
Schotten discloses that by using “the magnitude of the change in frequency
of the resonant circuit, it is possible to detect in the evaluation unit how large
the cooking vessel standing on the hotplate is, or how far a cooking vessel
has been pushed onto the hotplate or has been pulled off the hotplate.”
Schotten col. 4 11. 33—37. Additionally, Schotten discloses “the size of the
pot disposed on the hotplate is ascertained by virtue of the magnitude of the
change in frequency in the resonant circuit.” Id. 11. 45—48. Following this
detection, Schotten discloses
the evaluation unit sends suitable signals to a control unit for the
hotplate, which thereupon for example switches off the heating
if there is no cooking vessel on the hotplate, which switches on
only the inner heating circuit when a small pot is present on the
4
Appeal 2016-005229
Application 13/262,275
hotplate, which switches on both heating circuits when a large
pot is present, or which also shuts down the heating when the
cooking vessel has been pushed too far away from a central
position on the hotplate.
Id. 11. 49-57.
Schotten, thus, discloses that pot size detection is performed, based on
frequency, but this determination is not disclosed as involving the actual
calculation of the surface area of the bottom surface of the cookware, as
claimed.
For this reason we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
25 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 26—34 and 37 rejected along with claims 25 and 36.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 39 and 40
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Gerola fails to
disclose calculating the surface area of the bottom surface of cookware,
because Gerola instead merely detects, and displays, the location of a
cookware element on a cooking surface, without making any calculations.
Br. 17-18.
Gerola discloses detecting and displaying the heating elements over
which cookware has been placed on a cooktop, but this detection is only
based on using proximity sensors to determine which heating elements lie
under the position of the cookware on the cooktop. See Gerola col. 2,11. 4—
24. Gerola, thus, does not actually calculate the surface area of the
cookware element, as claimed.
5
Appeal 2016-005229
Application 13/262,275
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 39, nor of claim 40 that depends from claim 39, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 35 and 38
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 35 and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because the Examiner has not established on the record
that Gerola remedies the shortcomings of Schotten.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 25 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
We reverse the rejections of claims 25^40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6