Ex Parte Tacklind et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201512486514 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2015) 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. 12/486,514 06/17/2009 Christopher Tacklind 1049.03 5285 85444 7590 02/06/2015 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC 2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite L San Rafael, CA 94901 EXAMINER COX, STEPHANIE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1791 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/06/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER TACKLIND and R. BROOKE HANSON ____________ Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 10–13, 15–22, and 24–29. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. BACKGROUND Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a device and method for brewing coffee. Spec. 1. Claims 10, 12, and 16 are illustrative, and reproduced below (emphasis and paragraphing added): Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 2 10. A device for brewing coffee comprising a reservoir for selectively retaining water to be used for brewing, a heating element for raising the temperature of water held in said reservoir to a user-selected temperature, a basket for retaining coffee grounds, a transfer line for selectively transferring said water to said basket and a control valve for controlling the discharge of brewed coffee from said basket wherein said control valve opens and discharges brewed coffee from said basket only after all of the water intended to be brewed has steeped with said coffee grounds and further comprising an agitator to enhance saturation of the coffee grounds within said water, to accelerate brewing and to provide precise control over both the time that said water is in contact with said coffee grounds and the rate of discharge of said brewed coffee through said control valve. 12. The device of claim 11 wherein said control valve is pulse-frequency modulated. 16. The device of claim 10 wherein said agitator comprises an air pump and feed line for introducing air to the water and coffee grounds within said basket by positioning a pneumatic tube within said basket for discharging said air therein. The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of claims 10–13, 15, 17–22, 24, and 26–29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 3 §103(a) over Jefferson1 in view of Lyall2 and Gregg;3 and the rejection of claims 16 and 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Jefferson and Lyall, and further in view of King.4 OPINION Independent Claims 10 and 19 The Examiner finds that Jefferson and Lyall disclose a method and system for brewing coffee that includes a water reservoir, a basket, a transfer line, a heating element that can heat the water to a predetermined temperature selected by the user, and a control valve that can be set to retain all the water/coffee in the brewing chamber until after a designated brew time. Ans. 2–3 (citing Jefferson 13:1–6; Lyall Abstract, 4:16–32). The Examiner acknowledges that Jefferson and Lyall fail to teach an agitator or means for agitation as required in independent claims 10 and 19. The Examiner finds that Gregg discloses a method of making coffee comprising an agitation system, and teaches that the agitation system “can release greater amounts of coffee extract from the ground coffee particles thereby producing an improved coffee.” Ans. 3–4 (citing Gregg 5:6–8). In view of this, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an agitation system as disclosed by Gregg in the method and device of Jefferson and Lyall. Id. 1 Jefferson, Jr. et al., US 5,980,965, issued Nov. 9, 1999. 2 Lyall, III, US 7,225,728 B2, issued June 5, 2007. 3 Gregg et al., US 4,100,306, issued July 11, 1978. 4 King, US 4,967,647, issued Nov. 6, 1990. Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 4 Appellants argue that Gregg is directed to production of powdered instant coffee, and does not teach a process for brewing coffee. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1. Appellants contend that Gregg is therefore used for “a completely different and unrelated purpose” than Jefferson and Lyall, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to the Gregg process to amend the drip coffee system disclosed in Jefferson and Lyall. App. Br. 6–7. Appellants further argue that Jefferson teaches the use of screens or weirs to trap coffee grounds and prevent them from obstructing the flow of liquid exiting the brewing chamber. Id. According to Appellants, these parts are unnecessary in a system that uses agitation in the brewing chamber. Id. Additionally, Appellants contend that “[t]here would really be no place [in Jefferson] that the grounds and brewing water would be combined to be subjected to agitation within a suspension of solids and liquids.” Id. at 7 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we sustain the stated rejections. Although Appellants are correct that Gregg is generally directed to an improved instant coffee, Gregg discloses a step wherein dry coffee solids and water are combined, heated, and agitated “to permit the formation of a substantially uniform slurry of coffee particles and the extraction of coffee solubles therefrom” and “provide an extract substantially free of emulsified coffee oils.” Gregg 5:14–18; see also id. at 7:30–54. Gregg also teaches that the aqueous extract can be separated from insoluble materials in the slurry by filtration. Id. at 5:33–35. In view of this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that Gregg teaches brewing coffee as part of its process for Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 5 forming instant coffee, and using agitation to enhance extraction of coffee solubles during this step. See Ans. 8 (citing Gregg 7:30–65). Jefferson and Lyall are likewise directed to brewing coffee, and Jefferson discloses an embodiment where the heated water/brewed coffee can be held in the brewing chamber for the duration of a desired brew time and then quickly released. See id.; Jefferson 13:1–6. We thus find that the Examiner reasonably determined that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add agitation, as taught by Gregg, to Jefferson and Lyall’s system and method of brewing coffee in order to brew coffee more efficiently by enhancing extraction. See Ans. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not (or could not) incorporate agitation into Jefferson’s device based on Jefferson’s use of screens and/or weirs. Jefferson describes an embodiment depicted in Figure 6A that includes a pair of weirs extending across a brewing chamber, wherein each weir has an opening formed through it. Jefferson 7:4–13. Jefferson teaches that water is pumped into the brewing chamber and the coffee grounds and water form a slurry that rises above the weirs. Id. at 7:15–18. In view of the aforementioned disclosure in Gregg regarding agitation, we find, as did the Examiner, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place an agitator through the opening in the weir to increase extraction of coffee. Ans. 6. Appellants have neither directed us to any factual evidence nor provided an adequate explanation as to why the presence of a screen and/or weir would prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from taking advantage of the benefits attributed to agitation in Gregg. Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 6 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Jefferson in view of Lyall and Gregg. Because Appellants do not provide separate, persuasive arguments regarding the patentability of dependent claims 11, 15, 17–18, 20, 24, or 26–29, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above with regard to claims 10 and 19. Dependent Claims 16 and 25 Dependent claim 16 (dependent on claim 10) requires that the agitator “comprises an air pump and feed line for introducing air to the water and coffee grounds within said basket.” Dependent claim 25 (dependent on claim 19) also requires agitation caused by the introduction of air bubbles. The Examiner finds that King discloses injecting air into a coffee maker to agitate the coffee and water mixture as the coffee is brewed, and that doing so increases the amount of coffee that is extracted. Ans. 5 (citing King Abstract, 1:24–38). In view of this, the Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the air-induced agitation from King into the method and device of Jefferson and Lyall “in order to more efficiently brew coffee by extracting more of the coffee and therefore not creating waste.” Id. Appellants argue that King is a forced evacuation device, and therefore is physically uncombinable with either Jefferson or Lyall, which disclose drip systems. App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants argue that King does not disclose supplying air directly within the chamber where the water and coffee are mixed, but instead teaches introducing air into a lower chamber, Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 7 and then forcing the air into the chamber where the coffee water are mixed. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, Appellants do not specifically dispute that King teaches injecting air into a coffee brewer during the brewing cycle to increase agitation of water and coffee and provide more efficient brewing. Instead, Appellants focus on one embodiment of King and argue that this would be uncombinable with Jefferson and Lyall and does not satisfy the requirements of the claims. Id. King, however, discloses several embodiments of coffee machines wherein air is used to agitate the coffee and water mixture during brewing. Figure 4 of King illustrates one such embodiment wherein air is introduced directly into the brewing chamber from air pump 154 through conduits 156 and 158 and passage 159. King 3:33–4:17 and Fig. 4. Thus, we find, as did the Examiner, that the concept and benefits of using air to agitate coffee during brewing were well-known in the art, and that it would have been obvious to use a pump and feed line to inject air into the brewing chamber of Jefferson. Ans. 8–9. Moreover, even if Appellants are correct that the combination of Jefferson and King is not feasible due to the structural features of the two systems, this is not indicative of reversible error by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 8 Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 25. Dependent Claims 12, 13, 21 and 22 Dependent claims 12 and 21 specify that the control valve recited in independent claims 10 and 19, respectively, is pulse-frequency modulated. Dependent claims 13 and 22 specify that that the control valve recited in independent claims 10 and 19, respectively, is pulse-length modulated. The Examiner acknowledges that Jefferson does not explicitly describe a control valve that is pulse-frequency modulated or pulse-length modulated. Ans. 9. The Examiner, however, takes the position that the valve in Jefferson is pulse-frequency and pulse-length modulated because “it stays open for a specific period of time and with a particular frequency.” Id., see also id. at 4. Appellants argue that the control valve in Jefferson is not modulated in any fashion, and the Examiner has failed to identify which portions of Jefferson, or any other reference, actually teach a pulse-length or pulse frequency modulated control valve. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to specifically identify a prior art reference that discloses the control valves required in claims 12, 13, 21, and 22. Although Jefferson does describe a valve that is opened and closed, the Examiner has not directed us to any evidence demonstrating that the opening and closing of Jefferson’s control valve is pulse-frequency or pulse-length modulated. Appeal 2013-005299 Application 12/486,514 9 Therefore, we find that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claims 12, 13, 21, and 22, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 10, 11, 15–20, and 24–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and reverse the rejections of claims 12, 13, 21, and 22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mat Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation