Ex Parte Barker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12335787 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
12/335,787 12/16/2008 Charles R. Barker III R-08-024-US 1751
71016 7590
Bose Corporation
Patent Group
Mountain Road, MS 3B1
Framingham, MA 01701
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
docket @ bose. com
designs @ bose. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES R. BARKER III, ADAM CHRISTOPHER BRODERS,
RAYMOND O. ENGLAND, ANTHONY G. ESPOSITO,
THOMAS A. FROESCHLE, ALFRED G. GIOMBETTI,
JOHN MICHAEL KITCHURA, JR., MICHAEL NUSSBAUM,
and LAURA J. SCHROEDER
Appeal 2015-004468
Application 12/335,7871
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles R. Barker III et al (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 21—25, 31, and 32 as unpatentable over Baarman (US 2007/0221668
Al, pub. Sept. 27, 2007) and Ito (US 3,979,572, iss. Sept. 7, 1976); and of
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bose Corporation. Br.
2.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated January 16, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2015-004468
Application 12/335,787
claims 26—30 as unpatentable over Baarman, Ito, and Clothier
(US 6,274,856 Bl, iss. Aug. 14, 2001).3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 21, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below
and illustrates the claimed subject matter.
21. A method for operating an induction cooking system
having a cooktop, a primary induction coil for heating cookware,
a control system, and a cookware identifier, the method
comprising:
determining by means of said cookware identifier whether
or not an item of cookware disposed on said cooktop has an
identifying characteristic that identifies the item of cookware as
being of the cool cookware type, wherein an item of cookware
of the cool cookware type has a property that when the item of
cookware of the cool cookware type is heated for cooking, an
outer surface of the item of cool cookware remains cool to the
touch while an inside surface of the item of cool cookware
simultaneously has a temperature high enough to cook food, and;
if the item of cookware disposed on said cooktop is
identified as being of the cool cookware type, the induction
cooking system is operated with full functionality, and;
if the item of cookware disposed on said cooktop is
identified as not being of the cool cookware type, the induction
cooking system is operated with reduced functionality.
3 Claims 4—20 have been canceled and claims 1—3 are withdrawn. Br. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-004468
Application 12/335,787
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Baarman and Ito
Appellants argue claims 21—25, 31, and 32 together in contesting the
rejection of these claims as obvious over Baarman and Ito. See Br. 4—6. We
select claim 21 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 21, the Examiner determines that Baarman discloses
a method for operating an induction cooking system, with cookware
containing a cookware identifier, where the cookware has an outer surface
that “remains cool to the touch while an inside surface of the item of cool
cookware simultaneously has a temperature high enough to cook food.”
Final Act. 3^4 (citing Baarman, Fig. 1—11; H 1—80).4 In addition, the
Examiner observes that “[t]o the extent that it may be argued Baarman does
not disclose an item of cookware of the cool cookware type,”that Ito also
discloses “cookware of the cool cookware type” and reasons that it would
have been obvious
to modify Baarman as suggested and taught by Ito in order to
provide a cooking pot whereby the heat loss from the cooking
pot can be minimized, the temperature of the outer wall of the
cooking pot is not increased as high during cooking and the rise
in temperature of the range cover plate on which the cooking pot
is placed can be decreased.
Id. at 5—6 (citing Ito, col. 2,11. 1—12) (emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 11—
12.
4 In particular, Baarman discloses various cooking appliances in an inductive
cooking system with each providing specific information regarding its power
requirements. See ]Hf 7—8.
3
Appeal 2015-004468
Application 12/335,787
In taking issue with the analysis and conclusions presented in the
Final Office Action, Appellants first contend that “Baarman is silent as
regards items of cool cookware, as recited in claim 21.” Br. 5. However,
Appellants are simply attacking Baarman in isolation for lacking support for
teaching an item of cool cookware, rather than addressing the Examiner’s
combination of Baarman and Ito. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As pointed out supra, the Examiner alternatively
looks to Ito for teaching cool cookware. We need not reach the issue of
whether Baarman alone discloses the claimed item of cool cookware,
because we agree with the Examiner’s findings as to Ito and determine, for
the reasons stated infra, that the proposed combination of Baarman and Ito is
based on rational underpinnings and would result in the claimed method.
Appellants also contend that claim 21 requires that the cooktop
operate differently “if the item of cookware disposed on said cooktop is
identified as being of the cool cookware type, the induction cooking system
is operated with full functionality,” or “if the item of cookware disposed on
said cooktop is identified as not being of the cool cookware type, the
induction cooking system is operated with reduced functionality,” and that
“neither Baarman nor Ito discloses this specific limitation.” Br. 5.
However, as the Examiner reasons, “paragraph 43 of Baarman
discloses controller 36 [that] could identify trying pan 50 from the resonant
frequency signature of trying pan 50,” and “[paragraph 44 of Baarman
discloses memory 39 [that] could . . . contain the heating curves for frying
pan 50, identifying the current required of the primary to heat trying pan 50
4
Appeal 2015-004468
Application 12/335,787
to a temperature.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also explains, in referring to
annotated Figure 8 of Baarman, that the characteristics of a cooking device
are used to obtain the identifier of the device for determining the operation
of the induction cooking system. Id. at 11. As such, if Baarman were
modified as suggested by the Examiner to include the use of Ito’s item of
cool cookware, then according to the method disclosed in Baarman,
Baarman would operate the induction cooking system with different
functionality for this cool cookware than for other items of identified
cookware, as called for in claim 21. Accordingly, Appellants have not
apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions, and we
find none.
Appellants also contend that “absent the teachings of the present
application, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation provided to
support combining Ito with Baarman.” Br. 6. However, as discussed supra,
the Examiner cites teachings in the references in articulating reasons for
combining the references as proposed in the rejection. The cited portion of
Ito teaches that the cool cookware provides the advantages that “the
temperature of the outer wall of the cooking pot is not increased as high
during cooking and the rise in temperature of the range cover plate on which
the cooking pot is placed can be decreased.” Ito, col. 2,11. 9-12. Appellants
do not identify any knowledge that the Examiner relied upon that was
gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within
the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see also Radix Corp. v. Samuels, 13
USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) (“[A]ny obviousness inquiry necessarily
involves some hindsight.”).
5
Appeal 2015-004468
Application 12/335,787
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
21—25, 31, and 32 over Baarman and Ito.
Obviousness of claims 26—30 over Baarman, Ito, and Clothier
Other than observing that “the addition of Clothier fails to cure the
deficiencies of Baarman and Ito” (Br. 6), we understand Appellants’ appeal
of the rejection of claims 26—30 to rest on the arguments presented against
the rejection of claim 21, which we found not demonstrative of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—25, 31, and 32 over Baarman and Ito, as
set forth supra. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
claims 26—30 over Baarman, Ito, and Clothier.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6