SEB S.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020003866 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
14/372,374 07/15/2014 Sebastien Volatier SEBREG 3.3-002 1067
530 7590 05/26/2021
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
20 COMMERCE DRIVE
CRANFORD, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
LEFF, STEVEN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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):
eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIEN VOLATIER and DOMINIQUE EXCOFFIER

Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, 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 1–8, 10–16, 19, 21, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as SEB S.A. Appeal Br. 3.
2 The claims and art applied in this appeal is similar to that of Appeal 2020-
003852. Our decision is, thus, also similar.
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER3
Appellant describes the invention as relating to “a method for
implementing an apparatus for cooking a food item, comprising at least one
heating plate in contact with which the food can be cooked.” Spec. 1:5–8. In
particular, Appellant seeks to provide “automatic cooking that is truly
favorable to the food and to the taste of the user.” Id. at 1:26–28. Claim 1 is
illustrative, and we reproduce it below while adding emphasis to certain key
recitations:
1. A method for cooking a food item with an
apparatus comprising:
calculating, with the apparatus, a cooking duration
for a food item in contact with and between two heating
plates of the apparatus, using at least a surface area (Z)
occupied by the food item on at least one heating plate of
the apparatus, wherein the surface area is obtained from
temperature data variations measured with a temperature sensor
located at a periphery of the at least one heating plate occupied
by the food item;
heating, with one or more resistor(s) in the apparatus, the
food item in contact with two heating plates of the apparatus at
the calculated cooking duration; and
indicating, with the apparatus and to a user at an end of
the heating of the food, information which depends on at least
one internal cooking temperature value (X) of the food stored in
the apparatus,
wherein different internal cooking temperatures (X) of
the food item which correspond respectively to different

3 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 23,
2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 9, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated February 25, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief filed April 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

3
cooking states of the food are stored in memory of the
apparatus, and
wherein the information indicates to the user that the
cooking state corresponding to the cooking duration has been
achieved.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The other independent claims on appeal
(claims 12, 16, 19, and 21) similarly require calculation of a cooking
time based on, at least in part, a surface area occupied by the food (or
apparatus capable of performing such a calculation). Id. at 24–30.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Koether et al. (“Koether”) US 4,036,995 July 19, 1977
Goessler et al.
(“Goessler”)
US 4,511,789 Apr. 16, 1985
Nevarez et al.
(“Nevarez”)
US 2006/0254430 A1 Nov. 16, 2006
Imgram et al. (“Imgram”) US 2007/0288192 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
Ruff et al. (“Ruff”) US 2010/0274527 A1 Oct. 28, 2010
Gaffney et al.
(“Gaffney”)
WO 2005/082212 A1 Sept. 9, 2005

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 12–15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nevarez
in view of Imgram. Ans. 3.
B. Claims 1–8, 10, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Nevarez in view of Imgram and Goessler. Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

4
C. Claims 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Imgram in view of Nevarez and Gaffney. Id. at 11.
D. Claims 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Imgram in view of Nevarez, Gaffney, and Koether. Id. at
21.
E. Claims 1–8, 10–13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Nevarez in view of Imgram, Gaffney, and Koether. Id.
F. Claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Imgram in view
of Nevarez and Ruff. Id.
G. Claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nevarez in view
of Imgram and Ruff. Id. at 22.

OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative
steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s
findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies.
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

5
Because we decide this appeal based on a recitation recited, in substance, by
each independent claim, we focus our analysis on claim 1. This analysis is
equally applicable to each of the independent claims and, therefore, all of the
dependent claims as well.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Imgram in view of
Nevarez and Gaffney or, alternatively, Nevarez in view of Imgram and
Goessler (alone or with along with Koether). Ans. 5, 11, 21. The Examiner
finds that Imgram teaches calculating a first cooking duration as a function
of a surface area (Z) occupied by the food. Id. at 11–12 (citing, for example,
Imgram ¶¶ 33, 45). The Examiner finds that Nevarez “teaches a quantity of
food on the heating plates with respect to a reference quantity since more
food would require additional cooking time at a constant temperature or
higher temperatures where a smaller quantity would require less.” Id. at 13.
The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to identify the surface area (Z) occupied by the food
obtained by heating plate measurements where are directly influenced by the
temperature of the food as taught by Nevarez.” Id.4
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately establish that
the combined references teach or suggest calculation of cooking duration
based on surface area occupied by food. Appeal Br. 13. We agree. We begin
our analysis with claim construction. Each independent claim recites
calculating cooking time duration using, at least in part, “surface area (Z)
occupied by the food” or refers to apparatus for performing such a

4 The Examiner relies on Goessler or Gaffney as teaching resistor
components that are not pertinent to this decision. Id. at 7, 15.
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

6
calculation. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Notably, the claim does
not recite surface area of the food but rather surface area that the food
occupies. Each independent claim also requires “two heating plates.” In the
context of both the claims and the Specification, the word “occupied” refers
to the food occupying a heating plate (in other words, the food contacts a
heating plate). See, e.g., Spec. 3:22–33 (explaining that the food is in contact
with the heating plate and referring to estimation “of the surface area (Z)
occupied by this food on the heating plate”). The recited “surface area (Z)
occupied,” therefore, is the surface area of one of the heating plates that is
occupied by (i.e., in contact with) the food.
The Examiner’s explanation of Imgram and Nevarez does not
adequately establish that they teach or suggest calculating cooking time
based on surface area of the heating plate occupied by the food. Imgram is
primarily concerned with cooking two or more “especially lumpy” items and
makes use of a temperature probe to determine how cooked an item is.
Ingram ¶¶ 1, 26. Imgram acknowledges that the items may have different
“volumes, weights, diameters and/or surface areas” and refers to these
concepts as “size.” Id. ¶ 33. Imgram may make use of a temperature probe to
derive size of an item. Id. ¶ 34. The size information, in turn, may be used to
adjust the “cooking process.” Id. ¶ 47. Thus, Imgram fairly suggests that its
invention may calculate overall food surface area and use overall food
surface area to adjust cooking time. The Examiner has not, however,
established that Imgram determines surface area of the heating plate
contacting the food or uses this particular surface area information to
calculate cooking time. Reply Br. 4–7.
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

7
Nevarez determines cooking time based on the category of food being
cooked and based on thickness of the food. Nevarez ¶¶ 20, 21, 95, 96.
Nevarez suggests adjusting cooking time based on the temperature profile
for the food and based upon “quality, density, food starting temperature
(frozen/unfrozen) and the like.” Id. ¶ 91. The Examiner acknowledges that
Nevarez is silent to “surface area.” Ans. 23. While we agree with the
Examiner that Nevarez may suggest the well-known concept that size of the
food affects cooking time and may adjust cooking based on temperature of
the heating plate which, in turn, may be impacted by food touching the
heating plate (id. at 23–26), the Examiner does not adequately establish that
Nevarez, or Nevarez in combination with Imgram or any other references,
teaches or suggests calculating a cooking time as a function of surface area
of the heating plate contacting the food.
The Examiner’s treatment of dependent claims does not cure the error
we address above. We, thus, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–15, 16 103 Nevarez, Imgram 12–15, 16
1–8, 10, 19,
21, 23
103 Nevarez, Imgram,
Goessler
1–8, 10,
19, 21, 23
1–8, 10–13,
16, 19, 21,
23
103 Imgram, Nevarez,
Gaffney
1–8, 10–
13, 16, 19,
21, 23
1–8, 10–13,
16, 19, 21,
23
103 Imgram, Nevarez,
Gaffney, Koether
1–8, 10–
13, 16, 19,
21, 23
Appeal 2020-003866
Application 14/372,374

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–13,
16, 19, 21,
23
103 Nevarez, Imgram,
Gaffney, Koether
1–8, 10–
13, 16, 19,
21, 23
13–15 103 Imgram, Nevarez, Ruff 13–15
13–15 103 Nevarez, Imgram, Ruff 13–15
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–
16, 19, 21,
23

REVERSED