Ex Parte Knepler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

11105676 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
11/105,676 04/14/2005 John T. Knepler 27726-98320 2839
23644 7590 05/02/2017
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH)
P.O. Box 2786
Chicago, IL 60690-2786
EXAMINER
ROSS, DANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
Patent-ch@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN T. KNEPLER, KURT POWELL, DEAN MULLER,
TIMOTHY P. KAEDING, and ROBERT J. KOBYLARZ
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,6761
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John T. Knepler et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 9—28.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bunn-O-Matic
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1 (filed July 22, 2014).
2 Claim 1—8 have been withdrawn. Final Act. (Office Action Summary).
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention “relates to a method of checking, analyzing or
otherwise verifying the operation of food or beverage apparatus after
manufacture and before it is shipped to a distributor, customer, end user, or
the like.” Spec. 12.
Claims 9, 17, and 21 are independent claims. Claim 9, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
9. A method of testing at least one component of a beverage
maker, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a beverage maker having been assembled and
prior to shipment from the manufacturing facility, the beverage
maker having at least one component that can produce at least
one measurable characteristic before shipment from a
manufacturing facility;
testing the beverage maker by retrieving at least one signal
from the at least one component of the beverage maker
corresponding to the at least one measurable characteristic for
providing baseline information associated with the at least one
component of the beverage maker prior to shipping from the
manufacturing facility,
assigning one of a pass condition and a fail condition to
the at least one component of the beverage maker based on a
range of signal values for the at least one component of the
beverage maker;
saving the baseline information relating to a pass
condition signal on a device carried directly on the beverage
maker, with the baseline information being selectively
retrievable directly from the beverage maker,
after use of the beverage maker to make beverage,
comparing a measured current state of the at least one
measurable characteristic of the at least one component of the
beverage maker to the baseline information of the same at least
one measurable characteristic to determine a deviation between
the baseline and the current state used to analyze the condition
of the at least one component of the beverage maker,
2
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
using the deviation to at least one of repair, reconfigure
and adjust settings of the at least one component of the beverage
maker; and then
using the beverage maker to make beverage.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 9—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bunn (WO 02/23735 A2, pub. Mar. 21,
2002) and Turrin (EP 1,331,486 Al, pub. July 30, 2003).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 9-13, 15—21, and 23—25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Black (US
2003/0121937 Al, pub. July 3, 2003), Turrin, and Hays (US
6,260,004 Bl, iss. July 10, 2001).
III. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 22, and 26—28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Black, Turrin,
Hays, and Bunn.
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Black, Turrin, Hays, and Lamb (US
3,802,542, iss. Apr. 9, 1974).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The core of Appellants’ arguments revolve around whether Bunn and
Turrin, individually or as a combination, disclose establishing “baseline
information” for at least one component of the beverage maker prior to
shipment of the beverage maker from the manufacturing facility and
3
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
subsequently using that information to evaluate the same component after
operation of the beverage maker. Although neither the Appellants nor the
Examiner expressly define or interpret the term “baseline information,” the
dispute between them rests on its meaning. The Examiner implicitly defines
“baseline information” as data “indicative of the operational threshold which
the equipment may not cross.” See Final Act. 8; Ans. 9. Appellants’
arguments implicitly interpret “baseline information” as a threshold set by a
measured value of a component within an assembled beverage maker before
the beverage maker has been shipped from the manufacturing facility. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 5—8. The important difference between the meanings, and
thus the central issue of this appeal, is that the Examiner’s definition more
broadly covers any threshold value set for a component before shipment
without the value being measured; whereas, the Appellants’ meaning more
narrowly covers only a value actually measured for the component prior to
shipment. For the following reasons, the broadest reasonable interpretation
of “baseline information” is a threshold value set using the results of a
measureable characteristic for a component within a beverage maker before
the beverage maker is shipped from the manufacturing facility.
Turning to the context of claims 9, 17, and 21, each claim recites
measuring and storing at least one measurable characteristic of a component
within an assembled beverage maker before the beverage maker is shipped
from the manufacturing facility and using this data to establish “baseline
information.” Claim 9 recites, “providing a beverage maker having been
assembled and . . . having at least one component that can produce at least
one measurable characteristic,” “testing the beverage maker by retrieving at
least one signal from the at least one component... for providing baseline
4
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
information associated with the at least one component of the beverage
maker prior to shipping from the manufacturing facility,” and “saving the
baseline information relating to a pass condition signal on a device carried
directly on the beverage maker.” Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.). Claim 17
recites, “storing on the beverage maker at least one measurable characteristic
of the at least one component of a beverage maker measured after having
been assembled and before the beverage maker is shipped from a
manufacturing facility, the measured characteristic providing baseline
information.” Id. at 36. Claim 21 recites, “testing the beverage maker
before shipment to establish baseline data for the monitorable characteristics
for each of the plurality of components for making beverage, whereby the
baseline data for the plurality of components comprises the baseline
configuration of the beverage maker.” Id. at 37. The plain meaning of each
independent claim, therefore, expressly requires “baseline information” to be
established by using a measured value from a component within an
assembled beverage maker before the beverage maker is shipped from the
manufacturing facility. The Specification is consistent with the plain
meaning of the claims. See, e.g., Spec. H 8, 21, 27.
Although the Examiner has demonstrated that both Bunn and Turrin
utilize data indicative of the operational threshold to evaluate the operation
of an apparatus, the Examiner has not shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that either reference discloses “baseline information,” as properly
construed. Regarding Bunn, the Examiner finds that it fails to disclose
“baseline data is provided prior to shipping from the manufacturing facility.”
Final Act. 3. Because “baseline information” is a measured component
5
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
value made before it was shipped from the manufacturing facility, Bunn fails
to teach “baseline information” as we have interpreted that limitation.
Regarding Turrin, the Examiner finds paragraphs 12—14 establish it
was known to test a component of an assembled apparatus prior to shipment
to obtain a measured value for establishing a threshold value for that
component. Final Act. 3^4. Further, the Examiner finds,
Turrin clearly discloses that each apparatus should be tested prior
to shipment in order to establish a baseline for that apparatus and
that the baseline is then written to the control: “During the testing
procedure of the washing machine 10, the PEC 50 (which is
preferably placed in a control room for the testing of each
washing machine) performs reading and writing operations.”
Ans. 11 (citing Turrin 112).
Notably, the Examiner does not identify anything specific from
Turrin’s paragraphs 12—14 that teaches using a component’s measured value
prior to shipment to establish a threshold value that would be subsequently
used to evaluate the same component after deployment or use of the
beverage maker. From our consideration of these Turrin paragraphs,
however, we are persuaded Appellants more appropriately characterize them
as teaching an electrical test of the assembled system to evaluate whether the
components will perform properly. See Appeal Br. 13. In other words,
paragraphs 12—14 of Turrin do not teach establishing a threshold value that
is set by using the results of a measureable characteristic for a component
within an apparatus before it is shipped from the manufacturing facility.
Given the proper interpretation of “baseline information” in the context of
Appellants’ claims, we are persuaded the Examiner has not made a prima
facie case that either Bunn or Turrin teach the creation and/or use of baseline
6
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
information. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9-28 as unpatentable in view of Bunn and Turrin.
Rejection II
In Rejection II, the Examiner finds Black and Turrin disclose the
claimed “baseline information.” Final Act. 4—6. The Examiner finds Black
discloses “baseline information,” but fails to disclose a “beverage machine is
to store baseline information ‘prior to shipment from the manufacturing
facility.’” Id. at 5. Because “baseline information” is a measured value
from a component in an assembled apparatus before it was shipped from the
manufacturing facility, Black cannot teach the claimed “baseline
information.” The Examiner again relies on Turrin paragraphs 12—14 to
cure this deficiency with Black. Id. at 6. For the same reasons discussed
above (see supra Rejection I), we are persuaded that the Examiner’s reliance
on Turrin to teach “baseline information” is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9-13, 15—21, and 23—25 as unpatentable in view of
Black, Turrin, and Hays.
Rejections III and IV
The Examiner adopts the above errors into the rejections of claims 3—
5 and 13. See Final Act. 6—8. Neither Hays nor Lamb are relied upon to the
cure the deficiencies discussed above (see supra, Rejections I and II)
regarding claims 9 and 21. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 14, 22, and 26—28.
7
Appeal 2015-003374
Application 11/105,676
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9—28 are reversed.
REVERSED
8