MELITTA EUROPA GMBH & CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2021

2020003298 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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.
15/469,528 03/26/2017 Andreas SACHTLEBEN 06058.010US1 9703
39564 7590 03/15/2021
FisherBroyles, LLP - MAIN CN
885 Woodstock Rd, Ste. 430-383
Roswell, GA 30075
EXAMINER
TRAN, TIFFANY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2021 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):
docketing@fisherbroyles.com
patent@fisherbroyles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS SACHTLEBEN and MARKUS SCHAEFER
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528
Technology Center 3700
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
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 1–13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Melitta Europa
GmbH & Co.KG. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “coffee machine.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 13,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A coffee machine, comprising:
a brewing unit;
a grinding mechanism to process coffee beans into coffee
grounds that are used by the brewing unit to brew coffee;
a bean container for coffee beans, the bean container
having a bottom surface with an outlet opening which is
centered in the bottom surface and leads to the grinding
mechanism, the bottom surface being inclined toward the outlet
opening and including ridges arranged around the outlet
opening and extending in a direction of the outlet opening.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cai US 6,405,637 B1 June 18, 2002
Sit US 7,063,005 B1 June 20, 2006
Arzola US 2009/0057332 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Greenfield US 2009/0304886 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Deng US 2015/0075388 A1 Mar. 19, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Sit and Cai. Final Act. 5–11.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sit, Cai,
and Greenfield. Final Act. 11–12.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sit, Cai,
and Deng. Final Act. 12–13.
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528

3
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Sit, Cai, and Arzola. Final Act. 13–14.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 13 over Sit and Cai
The Examiner finds Sit and Cai teach all limitations of claim 13. Final
Act. 10–11. The Examiner finds Sit teaches most limitations of claim 13, but
finds Sit does not disclose “the bean container including ridges arranged
around the outlet opening and extending in a direction of the outlet
opening.” Final Act. 11; see also Sit, Fig. 2 (grinding basket 26). The
Examiner finds Cai discloses “ridges . . . surrounding the outlet opening . . .
and extending in a direction of the outlet opening.” Final Act. 11; see also
Cai, Fig. 2 (filter support ridges 92). The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of
Sit to include the ridges extending in a direction of the outlet
opening as taught by Cai in order to conduct the coffee
extraction to the central opening effectively.
Final Act. 11 (citing Cai, col. 23, ll. 14–15).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
It is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be inclined to provide the grinding basket (bean container)
26 of Sit with ridges to facilitate drainage of coffee extraction
since the grinding basket of Sit does not produce any coffee
extraction. The output of the grinding basket (bean container
26) of [S]it is simply coffee beans.
Appeal Br. 7; see also Appeal Br. 7 (“Facilitating the flow of coffee
extraction from a filter basket, which is the explicit purpose of the ridges in
the filter basket of Cai, has no applicability whatsoever to the bean container
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528

4
of [S]it the output of which is coffee beans, not coffee extraction.”), Reply
Br. 1–9.
In response, the Examiner explains
it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art
would be able to deduce that the ridges of Cai’s brew basket 81
would be able to perform the same function of facilitating
movement of a substance (e.g. beans) through an aperture if
said ridges were implemented in the bean basket of Sit with this
purpose.
Ans. 5.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We determine the Examiner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of
Sit and Cai lacks a rational underpinning.
Sit discloses a coffee machine including a “grinding basket 26 that
holds coffee beans 28 that are to be ground.” Sit, col. 3, ll. 40–41, Fig. 2.
Thus, Sit’s grinding basket 26 discharges coffee beans to the grinder.
Cai discloses a coffee machine that includes
filter support ridges 92 formed at the bottom portion of the
cone-shaped filter basket for supporting and preventing the
bottom portion of the cone-shaped filter paper from being
ruptured by the pressure above the paper filter, a central
opening 93 for discharging the extraction, a plurality of
extraction collecting channels 95 formed between the filter
support ridges [92] for collecting the extraction from the filter
paper above and conducting the extraction to the central
opening [93].
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528

5
Cai, col. 23, ll. 8–16. Thus, Cai’s filter basket, which includes filter support
ridges 92, discharges liquid extraction.
Because Cai’s ridges 92 are part of Cai’s structure for discharging
liquid extraction, we do not readily see a reason why an ordinarily skilled
artisan would use similar ridges in Sit’s structure (grinder basket 26) for
discharging coffee beans—not liquid extraction—to the grinder.
The Examiner’s reason in the Final Action for modifying Sit is “in
order to conduct the coffee extraction to the central opening effectively.”
Final Act. 11. However, Sit’s grinding basket 26 does not discharge liquid
(coffee) extraction.
The Examiner’s further reason in the Answer for modifying Sit is “the
ridges of Cai’s brew basket 81 would be able to perform the same function
of facilitating movement of a substance (e.g. beans) through an aperture.”
Ans. 5. We disagree. We determine the function of Cai’s ridges 92 is to
provide support for the filter paper and to prevent its bottom from being
ruptured (Cai, col. 22, ll. 5–8) when discharging liquid extraction, and as
such, we determine an ordinary skilled artisan would not find Cai’s ridges 92
to be readily-applicable to Sit’s grinder basket 26 which discharges coffee
beans—and does not have a paper filter.
In short, on the record before us, the reasoning to combine the
teachings of Sit and Cai, for claim 13, lacks a rational underpinning.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
The Examiner further finds Sit and Cai teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 5–7. The reasoning to combine the teachings of Sit and
Cai, for claim 1, lacks a rational underpinning for the same reasons
discussed above when addressing claim 13. See Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7.
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528

6
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–6, 8, and
9, which depend from claim 1.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 7 over Sit, Cai, and Greenfield
The Examiner does not find Greenfield cures the deficiency of Sit and
Cai. See Final Act. 11–12.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 over Sit, Cai, and Deng
The Examiner does not find Deng cures the deficiency of Sit and Cai.
See Final Act. 12–13.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 11 and 12 over Sit, Cai, and Arzola
The Examiner does not find Arzola cures the deficiency of Sit and
Cai. See Final Act. 13–14.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11
and 12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 9, 13 103 Sit, Cai 1–6, 8, 9, 13
Appeal 2020-003298
Application 15/469,528

7
7 103 Sit, Cai, Greenfield 7
10 103 Sit, Cai, Deng 10
11, 12 103 Sit, Cai, Arzola 11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–13

REVERSED