KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2020003379 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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.
14/911,586 02/11/2016 JEROEN ALPHONS PIKKEMAAT 2013P00256WOUS 1247
161401 7590 12/30/2020
Schott, P.C.
610 Old York Road, Suite 400
Jenkintown, PA 19046
EXAMINER
DODSON, JUSTIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@schottpc.com
philips@clairvolex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROEN ALPHONS PIKKEMAAT, HARMINA CHRISTINA
ZEIJLSTRA, CONSTANTIJN WILHELMUS MARIA BRANTJES,
BERENT WILLEM MEERBEEK, JAN FREDERIK SUIJVER,
NICOLAAS PETRUS WILLARD, ANDREA CASTELLANI, KAREL
JOHANNES ADRIANUS VAN DEN AKER, NICOLE PETRONELLA
MARTIEN HAEX, MART KORNELIS-JAN TE VELDE, JOHAN
MARRA, and HENDRIKUS JAN WONDERGEM
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6–14, 17, and 18. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a coffee machine for providing coffee
brew with reduced caffeine content. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A coffee machine for providing coffee brew with reduced
caffeine content, the coffee machine comprising:
a mixer configured to receive coffee and a caffeine-
reducing additive, the mixer having a coffee inlet configured to
receive the coffee, an additive inlet configured to receive the
caffeine-reducing additive, and a mixer outlet, wherein the mixer
is a grinder configured to grind at least one of the received coffee
and/or the received caffeine-reducing additive and is further
configured to provide a mixture of coffee grind and caffeine-
reducing additive to the mixer outlet, and wherein the grinder is
configured to reduce a grinding cycletime for a given mixture in
response to an increase in content of the caffeine-reducing
additive in the given mixture as compared to a grinding cycletime
prior to the increase in the content of the caffeine-reducing
additive in the given mixture, and
a brewing unit configured to one of decoct, infuse and
percolate the mixture, the brewing unit having a brewing unit
inlet and a brewing unit outlet configured to provide coffee brew,

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

3
wherein the brewing unit inlet of the brewing unit is connected
to the mixer outlet of the mixer to receive the mixture.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Alessi US 5,144,879 Sept. 8, 1992
Enomoto US 5,387,256 Feb. 7, 1995
Haber US 5,458,295 Oct. 17, 1995
Everhart US 5,603,830 Feb. 18, 1997
Hunte US 8,230,774 B1 July 31, 2012
Nelissen WO 2011/157759 A1 Dec. 22, 2011

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 6–14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 112(b) as indefinite.
II. Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Nelissen and Haber.
III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nelissen, Haber and Enomoto.
IV. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Nelissen, Haber, and Alessi.
V. Claims 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nelissen, Haber, and Hunte.
VI. Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 12, 13, and 172 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Nelissen, Everhart, and Haber.

2 We understand the Examiner’s inclusion of claim 5 in the heading of the
rejection (see Final Act. 21) to be a typographical error in that claim 5 is
canceled. See Final Act. 1; see also Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

4
VII. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nelissen, Everhart, Haber and Enomoto.
VIII. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Nelissen, Everhart, Haber, and Alessi.
IX. Claims 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nelissen, Everhart, Haber, and Hunte.
OPINION
Rejection I; Indefiniteness
In determining that independent claim 1 is indefinite, the Examiner
finds that “it is unclear in what way the grinder reduces a cycletime in
response to an increase in content of caffeine-reducing additive.” Final Act.
8.
Appellant asserts that because the Specification discloses how the
grinder reduces grinding cycletime, specifically, bentonite makes the coffee
bean grindings less sticky, which improves throughput. Appeal Br. 12
(citing Spec. 5:20–24); see also Reply Br. 2–3.
The Examiner is not persuaded by this assertion and notes that
although the Specification adds bentonite to reduce cycletime, it is unclear
how cycletime is reduced. Ans. 4.
Appellant has the better position. The Specification discloses that
“the grinder is arranged to reduce the grinding cycletime with increasing
content of additive in the mixture.” Spec. 5:20–21. The Specification
further discloses “adding additives such as bentonite changes the efficiency
of the grinder. The bentonite makes the half grinded coffee bean particles
less sticky which increases or rather improves the throughput of beans.”
Spec. 5:21–24. When using a coffee grind with additive, “the grinding time
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

5
per coffee serving is reduced with a least 5%, preferably at least 10%.”
Spec. 5:24–27. Based on this disclosure, an ordinary artisan would
understand that using a coffee grind with an additive such as bentonite, will
decrease the stickiness of the coffee bean particles and improve the
throughput of the beans. In this way, the grinding time (grinding cycletime)
will be reduced. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6–14, 17, and 18 as indefinite. We note, however, that it does
not appear that the grinder configuration reduces a grinding cycletime via a
change in the action of grinding itself. Rather, it appears the configuration
that allows the addition of bentonite or other additive makes the coffee
particles less sticky, and the presence of the additive improves cycletime.

Rejection II; Obviousness over Nelissen and Haber
The Examiner finds that Nelissen discloses many of the limitations of
claim 1, including providing a mixture to an outlet and a brewing unit that
outputs a prepared beverage. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner considers that
the “caffeine-reducing additive” is an intended use limitation that does not
include structure that defines over the apparatus of Nelissen. Id. at 11–12.
The Examiner also finds that Nelissen does not disclose that the mixer is a
grinder which receives caffeine-reducing additive that reduces a grinding
cycletime. Id. at 12. The Examiner finds that Haber’s mixer is a grinder
that reduces cycletime by varying the degree of opening of the outlet ports.
Id. at 13. The Examiner considers that it would have been obvious to add
Haber’s mixer/grinder to the mixer of Nelissen “to provide a means of
grinding ingredients in which the mixture, from distinct source, can be easily
controlled.” Id. at 14 (citing Haber, 1:14–21; 3:32–54).
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

6
Appellant argues that the combination of references is improper, and
that an ordinary artisan would not be motivated to combine Nelissen and
Haber because “there is no need of using a grinder to grind coffee in
Nelissen because the coffee is already in powdered form.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner responds that there is sufficient reasoning to combine
the references because it allows a mixture from distinct sources to be
controlled easily. Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, different levels of
grinding are known in the art, and adding Haber’s grinder would enable a
user to select different grinds. Id. (citing Castellani ¶¶ 29, 34 (US
2011/0120316 A1, pub. May 26, 2011)).
Appellant responds that any difference in the coffee grind is based on
the amount that the beans are ground. Reply Br. 5. According to Appellant
because there is no suggestion in Castellani or Haber of using a second
grinder for grinding already ground beans, the combination is improper. Id.
Appellant has the better position. Nelissen “relates to device for
metering and discharging accurately measured amounts of powder materials
from a container storing the powder material.” Nelissen, 1:2–3. Haber
discloses “providing for a simple mixture control” for proportioning coffee
bean mixtures. Haber 1:16–19. In a preferred embodiment, Haber discloses
controlling the “proportions of each type of bean … flow[ing] through the
outlets and into grinder entrance opening 27.” Haber, 3:35–36. Similarly,
Castellani discloses “a tank 17 for containing coffee beans which are ground
by a coffee grinding unit 19 below.” Castellani ¶ 29, Fig. 1. Castellani also
discloses that it is possible to set “various members (in particular of the
grinding unit 19) to obtain more or less strong coffee, i.e. coffee produced
with a greater or lower quantity of coffee powder, with a more or less fine
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

7
grinding of the coffee.” Id. ¶ 34. Although Castellani contemplates
alternate embodiments in which “the machine can be equipped with a tank
for ground coffee, or with more tanks for ground coffee or coffee beans, for
example to use alternatively normal coffee and decaffeinated coffee”
(Castellani ¶ 29), Castellani does not disclose that the tanks for the ground
coffee connect to grinding unit 19. A preponderance of the evidence does
not support the Examiner’s finding that it was known to further grind a
powder. Because the Examiner’s reasoning is based on an unsupported
finding, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 7–10, 12,
13, and 17 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Nelissen and Haber.
Rejections III–V
Each of Rejections III–V relies on the same reasoning discussed
above regarding Rejection II (see Final Act. 17–21), and, accordingly, we do
not sustain Rejections III–V for the same reasons discussed for Rejection II.

Rejections VI–IX
For Rejections VI–IX, the Examiner adds Everhart to each of
Rejections II–V, and relies on Everhart to disclose using a caffeine-reducing
additive for removing caffeine. See Final Act. 21–32. Each of Rejections
VI–IX, however, relies on the same reasoning discussed above regarding
Rejection II (see Final Act. 21–32), and, accordingly, we do not sustain
Rejections VI–IX for the same reasons discussed for Rejection II.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2020-003379
Application 14/911,586

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–14,
17, 18
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 2, 6–14,
17, 18
1, 2, 7–10,
12, 13, 17
103 Nelissen, Haber 1, 2, 7–10,
12, 13, 17
6 103 Nelissen, Haber,
Enomoto
6
11 103 Nelissen, Haber,
Alessi
11
12, 14, 18 103 Nelissen, Haber,
Hunte
12, 14, 18
1, 2, 7–10,
12, 13, 17
103 Nelissen, Everhart,
Haber
1, 2, 7–10,
12, 13, 17
6 103 Nelissen, Everhart,
Haber, Enomoto
6
11 103 Nelissen, Everhart,
Haber, Alessi
11
12, 14, 18 103 Nelissen, Everhart,
Haber, Hunte
12, 14, 18
Overall
Outcome:
1, 2, 6–14,
17, 18
REVERSED