NATURAL MACHINES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2020000468 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
15/512,928 03/21/2017 Alvar Gracia P2839US01 9689
38834 7590 12/16/2020
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
8500 LEESBURG PIKE
SUITE 7500
TYSONS, VA 22182
EXAMINER
GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALVAR GRACIA and EMILIO SEPULVEDA
____________

Appeal 2020-000468
Application 15/512,928
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, 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 14–16 and 18–24. 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. Appellant identifies “NATURAL MACHINES, INC.” as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000468
Application 15/512,928

2
The invention relates a method of cooking a food product created
using an additive manufacturing 3D printing process to cook the food
product layer by layer. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 18 is illustrative of the subject
matter claimed and is reproduced below:
18. A method of preparing a printed food product
using apparatus for preparing a food product including:
a cooking chamber;
an additive layer manufacturing printer for printing a
food product inside the cooking chamber;
a laser cooking apparatus including at least one laser
system configured to emit at least one laser beam adapted to
heat a food product to its cooking temperature and means for
deflecting and focusing the at least one laser beam, wherein
each laser system includes one of a single laser and at least two
lasers;
memory having information stored therein, including a
deflection pattern for the at least one laser beam and ingredient
information of the food product;
an electromagnetic radiation heating apparatus adapted to
emit electromagnetic radiation to warm the food product inside
the cooking chamber to a temperature below its cooking
temperature; and
a processor implementing computer program instructions
for controlling a plurality of apparatus parameters of the at least
one laser beam of the laser cooking apparatus, including focus,
beam spot diameter, frequency, power, and speed and for
implementing computer program instructions for controlling the
electromagnetic radiation heating apparatus the method
comprising the steps of:
printing the food product in the cooking chamber using
the additive layer manufacturing process;
cooking the food product using the laser cooking
apparatus, while the food product is being printed, by deflecting
Appeal 2020-000468
Application 15/512,928

3
and focusing the at least one laser beam emitted by the laser
cooking apparatus.
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14–16 and 18–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cochran (US
2011/0002677 A1, published January 6, 2011) and Yang (US 6,280,785 B1,
issued August 28, 2001). Appeal Br. 3; Final Act. 2.
OPINION
After review of the positions the Appellant provides in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer,
we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 14–16 and 18–24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for essentially the reasons Appellant presents. We
add the following for emphasis.
Claim 182
Claim 18 recites a method of preparing a printed food product
comprising the steps of cooking the food product using the laser cooking
apparatus while the food product is being printed via a 3D printer by
deflecting and focusing at least one laser beam emitted by a laser cooking
apparatus.
There is no dispute that Cochran teaches a method of cooking using a
laser cooking apparatus but fails to disclose cooking a printed food product
while it is being printed. Final Act. 3–4; Appeal Br. 3–4. The Examiner
finds that Yang teaches cooking printed 3D food products with complex
shapes after the food products have been fabricated. Final Act. 4; Yang col.
1, ll. 5–22. According to the Examiner, Yang teaches that it is conventional

2 We limit our discussion to sole independent claim 18.
Appeal 2020-000468
Application 15/512,928

4
in the 3D printing art to solidify each layer of an article as it is being printed.
Final Act. 4; Yang col. 3, ll. 35–38. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at the subject matter of
claim 18 from the teachings of the cited art. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues Yang fails to disclose cooking a printed food
product while it is being printed. Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellant,
while Yang discloses that the deposited layers may be solidified, solidifying
is not equivalent to cooking in the sense that there is no action performed by
device of Yang. Id. at 4–5. Instead, Appellant contends that Yang’s Figure
5 discloses cooking the deposited food products using heat only after all
layers have been deposited. Id. at 6.
We agree with Appellant that there is reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness. The Examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006), quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). The fact finder must be aware “of the distortion caused by
hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post
reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 36 (1966) (“warning against a ‘temptation to read into the prior art
the teachings of the invention in issue’”)).
The premise of the Examiner’s rejection is that one skilled in the art
would combine Cochran’s laser cooking apparatus/method with Yang’s food
Appeal 2020-000468
Application 15/512,928

5
3D printing device/method to arrive at the claimed method of cooking the
food product, using the laser cooking apparatus, while the food product is
being printed. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6–7. The Examiner contends that Yang’s
teaching that the printed food layers can be solidified before depositing the
subsequent printed food layer would lead one skilled in the art to cook each
food layer as it is printed. Ans. 7–9. However, the Examiner’s assertions
misapprehend Yang’s teachings because it does not take into account that
Yang is directed to putting energy into the assembled printed food product
where “the final shape [of the assembled product] could be different from
the original shape.” Yang col. 3, ll. 38–43. See also id. Figure 5, col. 8, ll.
42–43. The Examiner does not explain persuasively how one skilled in the
art would arrive at a method of cooking the food product using the laser
cooking apparatus while the food product is being printed via a 3D printer
from the combined teachings of the cited art.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Yang’s solidification of the
individually printed layers could be construed as cooking, as alleged by the
Examiner (Ans. 9–10), the Examiner still does not explain adequately how
one skilled in the art would modify Cochran’s laser cooking apparatus to
cook each layer of Yang’s printed food given that Cochran is directed to
cooking preformed food (Appeal Br. 4; Yang ¶¶ 245–251). Thus, the
Examiner does not explain adequately how one skilled in the art, absent
impermissible hindsight, would modify Cochran’s laser cooking apparatus to
arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims
14–16 and 18–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons Appellant presents
and we provide above.
Appeal 2020-000468
Application 15/512,928

6
DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14–16, 18–
24
103 Cochran, Yang 14–16, 18–
24

REVERSED