Ex Parte Van Der Burg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13818002 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/818,002 02/20/2013 Johan Michiel Van Der Burg 2010P01016WOUS 1275
24737 7590 09/05/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue CALVETTI, FREDERICK F
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN MICHIEL VAN DER BURG and
REMCO LINNEWIEL
Appeal 2016-006669
Application 13/818,002
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006669
Application 13/818,002
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 4—15. App. Br. 1. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. See Response to
Final Rejection dated July 31, 2015. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus for preparing food with heated
air. Spec., 1:2-4. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for preparing food comprising:
a. an inner wall defining a food receiving
space, said inner wall including an air inlet
and an air discharge opening;
b. a fan arranged for moving a flow of air
successively through the air inlet, the food
receiving space and the air discharge
opening;
c. an outer wall disposed relative to said inner
wall to cooperatively form an air guide for
returning the flow of air from the air
discharge opening toward the air inlet
separately from the food receiving space;
d. a heater disposed in the apparatus for
effecting heating of said flow of air;
e. a vent formed through the outer wall and in
communication with the food receiving
space to provide an outlet enabling a portion
of the flow of air to exhaust to outside of the
apparatus; and
f. an air guide member disposed adjacent to the
fan and extending to an edge of the vent to
direct said portion of the flow of air toward
the vent.
2
Appeal 2016-006669
Application 13/818,002
REFERENCES
Erickson US 5,513,558
EP 2034872 B1
May 7, 1996
Apr. 21,2010Weij
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 4—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weij and Erickson. Final Act. 2—3.
For independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Weij teaches an
apparatus for preparing food, the apparatus having the claimed inner wall,
air inlet, air discharge opening, fan, outer wall, and heater. Final Act. 2—3.
Although the Examiner also finds that Weij’s device includes a vent and air
guide member, id. at 3, the Examiner acknowledges that the claims differ
from Weij’s device in that, with respect to the claimed device, “air is vented
externally of the apparatus beyond the chamber for the food using air guide
member extending to an edge of the vent.” Id.\ Ans. 3.1 Therefore, the
Examiner relies on Erickson to teach a vent and air guide member. Final
Act. 3; Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, “Erickson teaches such a vent
1 In the Final Action, the Examiner alleges that Weij’s air discharge opening
6 corresponds to the claimed vent. Final Act. 3. But, as the Examiner
acknowledges, Weij’s opening 6 does not enable a portion of the flow of air
to exhaust to the outside of the apparatus. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner
additionally cites to paragraphs 33 and 52 of Weij to teach the claimed vent.
Ans. 2. These paragraphs teach using a pressure relief device to relieve
pressure in the food preparation chamber caused by heating the food. Weij
1133, 52. Weij does not depict any pressure relief device, however, and the
Examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have placed a pressure relief device such that an air guide member would
“extend[] to an edge of the [device],” as claim 1 requires.
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-006669
Application 13/818,002
64 using the upper guide wall 32 or 198 with guide/vane 69A to exhaust air
through the openings or fins.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious at the time of the invention to
provide additional ventilation to Weij as taught by Erickson to reduce
cooking time ... by at least exhausting moisture.” Id. (citing Erickson,
11:50-65).
Appellants respond that Erickson does not teach the claimed vent and
air-guide member, and that the Examiner has not articulated a rational
reason to combine Erickson with Weij. App. Br. 14—16. Appellants first
assert that Erickson’s “vent 64” refers to openings or ports in an upper
portion of Erickson’s device—above upper wall 32—that are used to release
heated air so as to cool the device’s upper motor, and that such vents are not
part of the separate, food-cooking air flow system found below. Id. at 14.
Appellants also assert that element 198, a “vent air scoop,” is part of a
different embodiment than that containing ports 64, upper wall 32, or
“guide/vane 69A,” and therefore cannot cooperate with any of these latter
elements. Id. at 15. Finally, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reason
to combine Erickson with Weij, to reduce cooking time, is described as a
benefit of using vent air scoop 198, and that Erickson does not associate any
such benefit to ports 64, upper wall 32, or vanes 69A. Id. at 16. According
to Appellants, the Examiner does not explain how or where vent air scoop
198 would be incorporated into Weij’s device in a way that would reduce
cooking time. Id.
We find that the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient initial showing
of obviousness of claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and dependent claims 4—15. First, as Appellants note, the Examiner relies
4
Appeal 2016-006669
Application 13/818,002
on teachings regarding structure from two different embodiments, but does
not adequately explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined such teachings. Nor is it self-evident how these
teachings would have been combined. Second, the portion of Erickson on
which the Examiner relies to support a reason to combine Erickson with
Weij—Erickson, 11:50-65—discusses only Erickson’s vent air scoop 198.
See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner has not pointed to any evidence that
openings 64 or upper wall 32 would speed the cooking process. On the
contrary, as Appellants point out, ports 64 and upper wall 32 only act to cool
the motor of the cooking device; they are not part of the air-flow mechanism
that cooks the food. Regarding mixing vanes 69A, such vanes are “located
diagonally under the cooking rack [and] cause [] the air to form two or more
counter-rotating air masses that dramatically improve the air exchange under
the rack.” Erickson 8:16—20. While this function may conceivably speed
cooking, the mixing vanes are not associated with openings 64 or upper wall
32, are not in the same embodiment as vent air scoop 198, and there is no
indication they “enable [] a portion of the flow of air to exhaust to outside of
the apparatus,” as claim 1 requires the vent to do. Finally, the Examiner has
not explained how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
incorporated vent air scoop 198 into Weij’s device—by itself or combined in
some manner with ports 64, upper wall 32 or mixing vanes 69A—to reduce
cooking time.
5
Appeal 2016-006669
Application 13/818,002
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4—15
is reversed.
REVERSED
6