Ex Parte Lommel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201712440523 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/440,523 11/22/2010 Diane Lommel AEG-44718 3671 116 7590 12/01/2017 PFARNF fr GORDON T T P EXAMINER 1801 EAST 9TH STREET SINGH, AMIT K SUITE 1200 CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2017 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): patdocket@peame.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIANE LOMMEL, ROBERTO GIORDANO, BRITTA BURLIN, ARRAN ALLSEBROOK, and KERSTEN KAISER Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Diane Lommel et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7-12, 14, and 16-23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Electrolux Home Products Corporation N. V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2-6, 13, and 15 are cancelled. Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A cooking appliance with at least one of a hob and a cooking cavity, a user interface for inputting and displaying information for controlling a cooking process utilizing the cooking appliance, wherein the user interface is wirelessly connected to the cooking appliance, the user interface comprises at least one inputting device, at least one displaying device, and a memory device, the user interface is configured to receive a status or feedback of cooking parameters transmitted from the cooking appliance, the at least one displaying device displaying the status or feedback of cooking parameters received from the cooking appliance, wherein the memory device stores an electronic user manual for the appliance. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baarman (US 2007/0221668 Al, published Sept. 27, 2007) and Schwarzbacker (US 5,710,409, issued Jan. 20, 1998). II. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baarman, Schwarzbacker, and Williamson (US 7,133,739 B2, issued Nov. 7, 2006). 2 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 III. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baarman, Schwarzbacker, and Burgermeister (US 2006/0246181 Al, published Nov. 2, 2006). ANALYSIS Rejection I—Claims 1, 7—10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19—23 Claim 1 Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baarman discloses a system comprising a cooking appliance and a user interface 34, which comprises a memory 39 for inputting and displaying information for controlling a cooking process utilizing the cooking appliance. Final Act. 3- 4 (citing Baarman, Figs. 1-2). The Examiner finds that Baarman does not disclose that the user interface is wirelessly connected to the cooking appliance, or a memory device of the user interface that stores an electronic user manual for the appliance. Id. at 4; see also id. at 7. The Examiner finds that Schwarzbacker discloses a hand programming device 51 connected wirelessly to a cooking appliance 50 and having a memory device that stores an electronic user manual (“user guide”) for the appliance. Id. at 4 (citing Schwarzbacker, Fig. 1, col. 1,11. 38-53, col. 3,11. 24^15); see also id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “utilize in the disclosure of Baarman for [a] system and [a] method for food preparation, the wireless connection scheme of the control arrangement for cooking devices as taught by [Schwarzbacker], to provide an easy availability of a desired cooking program and a simple operation.” Id. (citing Schwarzbacker, col. 1,11. 11-37). 3 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 Appellants contend that the combination of Baarman and Schwarzbacker fails to disclose or render obvious the limitation of “‘the memory device Tof the user interfacel stores an electronic user manual for the appliance.’” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. In this regard, Appellants argue that Schwarzbacker does not disclose a user manual, but merely discloses information related only to the operation of the hand programming device. Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue that an ordinary artisan would understand a user manual to be a collection of general directions, frequently asked questions, and the like relating to the use of a device. Appeal Br. 8. As such, Appellants contend, each of the help functions of Schwarzbacker’s hand programming device exists individually, is not part of a collection, and is directed to solving specific problems as opposed to the general use of a product. Id. Appellants further contend that an ordinary artisan would not equate a menu of a programming device to a user manual. Id. We are not persuaded that Schwarzbacker fails to disclose an electronic user manual, as claimed. We note that Appellants’ Specification does not provide a specific definition of a “user manual.” Further, Appellants do not provide any evidence to show how an ordinary artisan would construe this term. Schwarzbacker discloses that the programming on the hand programming device is facilitated by the user guide. Schwarzbacker, col. 1,11. 48-51. Accordingly, Schwarzbacker’s user guide provides a collection of general directions to use the hand programming device which controls the cooking appliance. Thus, an ordinary artisan would understand Schwarzbacker’s user guide as a “user manual.” 4 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 Consequently, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s position. Appellants also argue that Schwarzbacker’s user guide is for the hand programming device instead of for the cooking appliance. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. In support, Appellants argue that the help functions on the hand programming device are for the hand programming device, not for the appliance. Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellants contend that claim 1 recites the cooking appliance and user interface as distinct elements, and it is therefore improper for the Examiner to consider Schwarzbacker’s hand programming device as part of the cooking appliance such that the hand programming device’s user guide is also for the cooking appliance. Id. We agree with Appellants that it is improper for the Examiner to rely on Schwarzbacker not teaching that the user guide is limited to the programming device as support for the finding that the user guide is for a cooking appliance. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. We also do not agree with the Examiner that the recitation of the term “with” in claim 1 makes the user interface a part of the cooking appliance. See Ans. 5. Claim 1 recites “[a] cooking appliance with at least one of a hob and a cooking cavity,” and separately recites “a user interface.” Accordingly, we construe claim 1 to be directed to a cooking appliance and a user interface. Schwarzbacker discloses that the hand programming device is used to set and store cooking programs, as well as to call diagnostic programs and user functions. Schwarzbacker, col. 1,11. 38^45. Thus, the user guide also relates to and is for the cooking appliance. In other words, to utilize these programs, Schwarzbacker’s user guide needs to contain information related to the cooking appliance. See Appeal Br. 8 (Appellants contend that “when 5 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 the claims further recite that the manual is for the appliance, the manual must contain some information related to the appliance and not the user interface.”). Appellants contend that Schwarzbacker is silent as to where the user guide is stored. Id. at 7. As such, Appellants contend that Schwarzbacker does not disclose that the user guide is stored in the hand programming device, that is, “the memory device [of the user interface] stores an electronic user manual” as claimed. Id.; Reply Br. 2. In Schwarzbacker, the cooking and diagnostic information is stored on the hand device. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Appellants also contest the Examiner’s motivation for combining Baarman and Schwarzbacker. Appeal Br. 10. More specifically, Appellants contend that Baarman discloses two-way communication between the user interface and the cooking appliance, whereas Schwarzbacker discloses a one-way communication. Id. According to Appellants, Baarman is directed to a primary user interface for a cooking appliance, whereas Schwarzbacker is directed to a remote control for the cooking appliance, such that an ordinary artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Baarman and Schwarzbacker. Id.; Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining the teachings of Baarman and Schwarzbacker is insufficient. Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in Schwarzbacker that clearly indicates the communication between the hand programming device and the cooking appliance is only one-way. As discussed supra, Schwarzbacker discloses that the hand programming device is used to set and store cooking programs, as well as to call diagnostic programs and user functions. 6 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 Schwarzbacker, col. 1,11. 54-58. Accordingly, the communication between the hand programming device and the cooking appliance would necessarily be two-way in order to carry out diagnostic programs as well as cooking programs. As the Examiner explains, Schwarzbacker’s user guide could readily be included in Baarman’s communication mode, whether a one-way or a two-way communication, because the user guide would still be accessible to a user once it is added to Baarman’s system. Ans. 13. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Appellants’ contention that an ordinary artisan would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Baarman and Schwarzbacker because Baarman is directed to a primary user interface for a cooking appliance and Schwarzbacker is directed to a remote control for the cooking appliance, is also unpersuasive. Appellants do not provide any persuasive argument or evidence to show why it would not have been obvious to use a remote control in place of, or in addition to, a primary user interface. Appellants’ contention that the Examiner does not provide a reason why an ordinary artisan would have added the claimed feature is also unconvincing. The Examiner reasons that the combination would provide “an easy availability of a desired cooking program and a simple operation.” Final Act. 7. We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection lacks a reason for the proposed modification of Baarman’s cooking system. Appellants also argue that even if an ordinary artisan would combine the teachings of Baarman and Schwarzbacker, the result would merely be the addition of the handheld programming device of Schwarzbacker to the user interface of Baarman, not the combination of features in 7 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 Schwarzbacker’s handheld programming device with Baarman’s user interface. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants’ argument appears to be based on bodily incorporating some or all features of Schwarzbacker into Baarman. The test for obviousness is not, however, whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on the teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. In re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of Examiner’s error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Baarman and Schwarzbacker. Claims 7-10. 12. 14. 16. 17. and 19-23 Appellants state they are arguing for the patentability of claims 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 as a group separately from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11. However, Appellants merely state that “Appellants herein incorporate their above remarks regarding claim 1,” and “[f]or at least these reasons, claims 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 are allowable over Baarman and [Schwarzbacker].” Id. Accordingly, we sustain also the rejection of these dependent claims as unpatentable over Baarman and Schwarzbacker for the same reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1. Rejections II and III Claims 11 and 18 For claims 11 and 18, Appellants rely on the same arguments as those made for Rejection I. Id. at 12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 over Baarman, Schwarzbacker, and Williamson, and the rejection 8 Appeal 2017-000021 Application 12/440,523 of claim 18 over Baarman, Schwarzbacker, and Burgermeister for the same reasons as those discussed for claim 1. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 7-12, 14, and 16-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation