Leandro Rizzuto et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 12, 2021

2019006807 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021)

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.
14/659,927 03/17/2015 Leandro P. Rizzuto 5264-0201-1-1 9269
13075 7590 01/12/2021
Conair Corporation -
Grogan, Tuccillo & Vanderleeden, LLP
1350 Main Street, 5th Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
EXAMINER
WHATLEY, KATELYN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2021 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 2019-006807
Application 14/659,9272
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 1, 7–9, 11, and 12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

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. Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Appellant states that this application is a divisional of Application
13/551,007. Appeal Br. 3. The ’007 Application was before the Board in
Appeal 2018-007774, decided October 7, 2019. In that appeal, which
involved claims similar to those at issue in this appeal and prior art that
substantially overlaps with the prior art at issue in this appeal, the Board
affirmed each of the Examiner’s rejections. The ’007 Application was
subsequently abandoned.
Appeal 2019-006807
Application 14/659,927

2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to brewed beverage appliances
such as coffee makers. E.g., Spec. ¶ 2; Claims 1, 11. Claim 1 is reproduced
below from pages 2–3 (Claims Appendix) of the Response to Notification of
Non-Compliant Appeal Brief:
1. A brewed beverage appliance, comprising:
a housing;
a steam source;
a milk reservoir;
a brewed beverage dispensing spout;
a frothed milk dispensing spout;
a milk frothing unit fluidly coupled to said frothed milk
dispensing spout, said milk frothing unit having a steam inlet for
receiving steam from said steam source and a milk inlet for
receiving milk from said milk reservoir;
a first valve associated with said milk inlet and controllable
between an open state and a closed state to control a flow of milk
to said milk frothing unit;
a second valve associated with said steam inlet and controllable
between an open state and a closed state to control a flow of
steam to said milk frothing unit;
a processor electrically coupled to said first and second valves,
said processor configured to control said first and second valves
between said open and closed states automatically at the end of
a brewing cycle to purge milk contacting surfaces of said brewed
beverage appliance;
a first switch electrically coupled to said processor and
configured to control said first valve between said open and said
closed state, said first switch being manually actuatable to
Appeal 2019-006807
Application 14/659,927

3
manually initiate a dispensing of milk only through said milk
frothing unit and out of said frothed milk dispensing spout; and
a second switch electrically coupled to said processor and
configured to control said second valve between said open and
said closed state, said second switch being manually actuatable
to manually initiate a burst of steam only through said milk
frothing unit and out of said frothed milk dispensing spout for a
variable amount of time to further purge said milk contacting
surfaces of said brewed beverage appliance;
wherein said processor is configured to control said first valve
and said second valve to said open states to permit said flow of
milk and said flow of steam into said milk frothing unit to
produce frothed milk;
wherein said processor operates according to a control algorithm
such that when a desired quantity of frothed milk is dispensed
from said frothed milk dispensing spout, said first valve is
controlled to said closed state and said second valve is
maintained in said open state for a predetermined amount of time
to cleanse said milk frothing unit and milk dispensing spout; and
wherein said second switch is configured to be deactivated
manually to manually cease said burst of steam.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 12 over Anderson (US 5,207,148, issued May 4,
1993), Reyhanloo (US 2011/0005407 A1, published Jan. 13, 2011), and
Eckenhausen (US 2003/0232115 A1, published Dec. 18, 2003).
2. Claim 7 and 8 over Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen, and
Rizzuto (US 5,473,972, issued Dec. 12, 1995).
3. Claims 1, 9, and 11 over Bragg (US 2005/0126400 A1, published
June 16, 2005), Anderson, Reyhanloo, and Eckenhausen.
Appeal 2019-006807
Application 14/659,927

4
4. Claims 7 and 8 over Bragg, Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen,
and Rizzuto.
ANALYSIS
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 Action dated January 9, 2018, and in the Examiner’s Answer.
Rejections 1 and 2
The Appellant argues the claims subject to Rejections 1 and 2 as a
group. We select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims subject
to Rejections 1 and 2 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the cited prior art
teaches or suggests a switch that is both “manually actuatable to manually
initiate a burst of steam” and “deactivated manually to manually cease said
burst of steam,” as recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–12. The Appellant’s
position is that the prior art teaches only automatic steam cleaning and does
not teach or suggest a steam dispenser that can be both manually started and
manually stopped. Id. The Board addressed essentially the same issue in a
previous appeal involving a related patent application, see supra n.2, and
found the Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. The Appellant
provides no reason to depart from the previous analysis. We provide a
similar analysis, as applicable to the specific facts of this case, below.
Appeal 2019-006807
Application 14/659,927

5
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, 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 . . . .”). Contrary to the Appellant’s arguments, 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 the Answer, see
Ans. 6, 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.
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.
Ans. 6 (quoting Office Action Response dated Aug. 22, 2016). By the
Appellant’s own admission, Reyhanloo’s disclosure of a “manual” process
that does not require automatic stopping necessarily indicates “that the
Appeal 2019-006807
Application 14/659,927

6
manual switch must be manually turned ‘off.’” See Office Action Response
dated Aug. 22, 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, and consistent with the Board’s previous decision in
Appeal 2018-007774, we are not persuaded of reversible error on the basis
of the Appellant’s argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest both
manually starting and manually stopping a cleaning cycle to yield a variable
duration cycle. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”).
Rejections 3 and 4
In Rejections 3 and 4, the Examiner relies on Reyhanloo and
Eckenhausen as set forth above. The Appellant raises the same argument
discussed above as to Rejections 1 and 2, and further argues that “the
teachings of Bragg do not make up for the deficiencies of Anderson,
Reyhanloo, and Eckenhausen.” Appeal Br. 17–18.
Appeal 2019-006807
Application 14/659,927

7
Because we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions concerning Anderson, Reyhanloo, and
Eckenhausen, and the Appellant raises no new arguments as to Rejections 3
and 4, we likewise are not persuaded of reversible error in Rejections 3
and 4.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 12 103(a) Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen 1, 12
7, 8 103(a) Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen, Rizzuto 7, 8
1, 9, 11 103(a) Bragg, Anderson, Reyhanloo, Eckenhausen 1, 9, 11
7, 8 103(a)
Bragg, Anderson,
Reyhanloo,
Eckenhausen, Rizzuto
7, 8
Overall
Outcome
1, 7–9,
11, 12
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