Leandro P. Rizzuto et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2019

13551007 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2019)

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.
13/551,007 07/17/2012 LEANDRO P. RIZZUTO 5264-0201-1 1014
13075 7590 10/07/2019
Conair Corporation -
Grogan, Tuccillo & Vanderleeden, LLP
1350 Main Street, 5th Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
EXAMINER
WHATLEY, KATELYN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2019 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):
Lawrence_Cruz@conair.com
docket@gtv-ip.com
stefani_pavlicic@conair.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEANDRO P. RIZZUTO and JOSEPH J. LASKOWSKI1
____________

Appeal 2018-007774
Application 13/551,007
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 8, 13–17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of cleaning a brewed
beverage (e.g., cappuccino) appliance. E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4; Claim 8. Claim 8
is reproduced below from page 21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Conair
Corporation. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007774
Application 13/551,007

2
8. A method of cleaning a brewed beverage appliance having a milk
frothing unit including a frothed milk dispensing spout in fluid
communication with a venturi, said venturi having a steam inlet
for receiving steam from a steam source and a milk inlet for
receiving milk from a milk reservoir, said method comprising the
steps of:
in an automatic mode of operation, initiating a flow of milk from
said milk reservoir and a flow of steam from said steam source
through said venturi and out of said frothed milk dispensing
spout, ceasing said flow of milk through said venturi,
maintaining said flow of steam through said venturi for a
predetermined period of time after said flow of milk through said
venturi is ceased, and ceasing said flow of steam through said
venturi, wherein a milk valve controls an ingress of milk to said
venturi, a steam valve controls an ingress of steam to said
venturi, and said steps of initiating said flows of milk and steam,
ceasing said flow of milk, maintaining said flow of steam
through said venturi, and ultimately ceasing said flow of steam
through said venturi are carried out automatically by a processor
electrically coupled to said milk valve and said steam valve to
automatically purge milk contacting surfaces of said brewed
beverage appliance; and
in a manual mode of operation, manually activating a switch to
manually initiate a burst of steam only through said venturi and
out of said frothed milk dispensing spout to further purge said
milk contacting surfaces of said brewed beverage appliance, and
manually deactivating said switch to cease said burst of steam
only through said venturi, said burst of steam having a variable
duration.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
1. Claims 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 over Anderson (US 5,207,148, issued
May 4, 1993), Reyhanloo (US 2011/0005407 A1, published Jan. 13, 2011),
Appeal 2018-007774
Application 13/551,007

3
and Eckenhausen (US 2003/0232115 A1, published Dec. 18, 2003). Final
Act. 3.
2. Claims 8, 13–16, and 19 over Rizzuto (US 5,473,972, issued
Dec. 12, 1995), Anderson, Reyhanloo, and Eckenhausen. Final Act. 9.
3. Claim 20 over Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen, and Rizzuto.
Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 8 as
representative, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with
claim 8.
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Office Action, and in the Examiner’s Answer. See generally Final
Act. 2–33; Ans. 3–9.
The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches a method of cleaning a
brewed beverage appliance comprising each element of claim 8 except for
the “in a manual mode of operation” step. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner
finds that Reyhanloo teaches that it is known in the art “to activate a switch
manually to initiate a burst of steam only through a milk frothing venturi and
out a frothed milk dispensing spout to purge the milk contacting surfaces of
the brewed beverage appliance and to manually deactivate the switch to
cease said burst of steam.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner finds that
Eckenhausen teaches a system “that operates in both an automatic mode of
operating and a manual mode of operation,” and that such “is known in the
Appeal 2018-007774
Application 13/551,007

4
art to be beneficial to allow for the operator to further purge and flush the
milk contacting surfaces as desired and on demand, after the appliance
automatically purges and flushes the milk contacting surfaces.” Id. at 5.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to add a manual
mode switch to Anderson in view of Reyhanloo and Eckenhausen “to allow
the operator to purge and flush the milk contacting surfaces as desired.” Id.
at 5.
The Appellant argues that none of the references teach both manually
activating and deactivating a switch to yield a “variable duration” cleaning
cycle, as required by claim 8. App. Br. 9–15.
That argument is not persuasive. Reyhanloo teaches manual operation
of a steam cleaning cycle. See Reyhanloo ¶¶ 23, 24, 34–39, 50, 57.
Reyhanloo teaches that an affirmative step of its process is “ending the
passage of steam.” Id. ¶¶ 34–35; see also id. ¶¶ 36–39, ¶ 57 (“Following the
flushing process the switching valve 8 can again be switched
manually . . . .”). Those disclosures teach or suggest to a person of ordinary
skill in the art a cleaning process that is both manually started and manually
stopped.
Even if Reyhanloo did not directly indicate a process that is both
manually started and manually stopped, Reyhanloo expressly describes a
“manual” process, e.g., id., and, as the Examiner explains in both the Final
Action and the Answer, see Final Act. 22; Ans. 3–4, during examination of
the application involved in this appeal, the Appellant overcame a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, by arguing the following:
As is readily known to one of ordinary skill, if a switch is
described as being ‘manual’, it requires some type of action on
the part of the user to start and stop, or turn on and off, the switch.
Appeal 2018-007774
Application 13/551,007

5
Indeed, unless it is disclosed that a manual switch, once triggered
‘on’, will automatically go off or go to another state after a
predetermined period of time, one of ordinary skill in the art
would certainly assume that the manual switch must be manually
turned ‘off’, as well as ‘on’. And since every user will turn a
switch ‘on’ and ‘off’ at differing times, the duration of the ‘on’
period is ‘variable’, whether this word is utilized in the
specification as originally filed, or not.
Final Act. 22 (quoting Office Action Response dated Aug. 19, 2016, at 6);
Ans. 3–4 (same). By the Appellant’s own admission, Reyhanloo’s
disclosure of a manual process that does not require automatic stopping
necessarily indicates “that the manual switch must be manually turned
‘off.’” Office Action Response dated Aug. 19, 2016, at 6
Finally, apart from Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen discloses a manual
process (although not specifically a cleaning process) in which a switch is
activated and “continues for as long as the button 82 is depressed.”
Eckenhausen ¶ 48; see also Eckenhausen ¶ 54 (“Depending upon which of
the buttons . . . is actuated, the solenoid 41 will maintain the valve gate 38 in
a withdrawn condition either until the button is released, or for a
predetermined time interval . . . .”). Thus, beyond the disclosures of
Reyhanloo described above, it was well known in the art of coffee beverage
appliances to allow for processes that can be manually started and stopped to
achieve desired results.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error on the basis of
the Appellant’s argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest a
manual mode that involves both manually starting and manually stopping
the cleaning cycle to yield a variable duration cycle. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to
Appeal 2018-007774
Application 13/551,007

6
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections . . . .”).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 13, 14, 16, 17 § 103(a) Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen 8, 13, 14, 16, 17
8, 13–16, 19
§ 103(a) Rizzuto,
Anderson, Reyhanloo,
Eckenhausen
8, 13–16, 19
20
§ 103(a) Anderson,
Reyhanloo,
Eckenhausen, Rizzuto
20
Overall
Outcome 8, 13–17, 19, 20
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