Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

2021002855 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/119,761 08/18/2016 Minoru TANAKA 70404.3165/ay 9628
54072 7590 10/01/2021
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2021 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
epreston@kbiplaw.com
uspto@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MINORU TANAKA, MASAYA UCHIYAMA,
and MARI NISHIDE

Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, 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, 6, and 7, the only claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a heating cooking system. Claim 1 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A heating cooking system comprising:
a cooking device;
servers for communicating with the cooking device via a
communication network; and
one or more information terminals for communicating with the
servers via the communication network, wherein the servers
include:
a communication tool manager for managing
communication tools of the one or more information
terminals and the cooking device to enable
communication among multiple users of the one or more
information terminals and the cooking device, and
a cooking-menu proposing section for proposing
recommended cooking menus, wherein
the communication tool manager is configured to enable
the recommended cooking menus proposed from the
cooking-menu proposing section to the communication
tools to be downloaded from the servers to the cooking
device by operating any of the one or more information
terminals, and
in response to an instruction by one of the multiple users
to download the recommended cooking menus, the
communication tool manager is configured to display, on
the one or more information terminals, information
indicating which of the multiple users input the
instruction to download the recommended cooking
menus.

Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kudo (US 2004/0099144 A1, published May 27,
2004) in view of Yeh (US 2004/0005044 A1, published Jan. 8, 2004).

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues claims 1, 6, and 7 as a group. The rejection of claim
1 is addressed below, and claims 6 and 7 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Kudo discloses a heating cooking system
providing all limitations in claim 1, except that Kudo does not explicitly
disclose communication among users of the information terminal. Final Act.
3–4. The Examiner cites to Yeh as disclosing a system allowing for such
communication among users, and concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify Kudo to integrate messaging in an easy and convenient way. Id.
at 6.
Appellant first argues that Kudo does not disclose any process of
downloading data from a server to a cooking device. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant argues that, in Kudo, recommended menu items are downloaded
from a server to a recording medium that is inserted into an information
terminal device, and then, after such downloading, the recording medium is
inserted into the microwave oven. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner responds that the downloading of data from a server to
a cooking device in claim 1 does not preclude the downloading of data from
a server to a removable memory inserted into an information terminal
device, which is subsequently operably coupled to the cooking device to
Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

4
relay that data to the cooking device. Ans. 5–6.2 The Examiner additionally
regards the removable memory to be part of the cooking device in Kudo
when inserted, such that the download is ultimately made to the cooking
device. Id. at 6.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require direct
download from the server to the cooking device. Although Appellant’s
disclosure appears to contemplate direct download, we do not understand the
disclosure to mandate direct download, and decline to read such a limitation
into claim 1. We note additionally that claim 1 recites that the downloading
from the server is by operation of the one or more information terminal, and
that is precisely what is done when the Kudo information terminal has the
removable memory device inserted therein. The argument does not apprise
us of error in the rejection.
Somewhat relatedly, Appellant argues that, when the cooking device
of Kudo is configured to be directly connected to the Internet, Kudo does not
operate an information terminal to effect downloading recommended
cooking menus from the servers to the cooking device, as claimed. Appeal
Br. 7. Appellant argues that the downloading is instead effected by a user
operating a panel disposed on the microwave oven. Id. at 7–8.
This argument appears to be based on Appellant’s position that claim
1 requires downloading data directly from a server to the cooking device,
which Kudo also contemplates, and that, when so configured, Kudo does not
effect the downloading via operation of an information terminal. We have

2 The Examiner points out that the term “directly” had previously been
introduced into claim 1 to limit the downloading to be directly to the
cooking device, but that the term was ultimately removed. Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

5
already addressed, above, that claim 1 is not limited to direct download, and
that the download to a memory device resident in an information terminal,
with a subsequent insertion of the memory device into a cooking device as
taught by Kudo, is within the scope of claim 1. As such, the argument is
unavailing. Even considering the embodiment of Kudo in which the
cooking device is directly connected to the Internet, Kudo does not appear to
limit interaction and operation only to a panel on the cooking device. Kudo
additionally contemplates that “a device including an operation input section
and a display section as shown in FIG. 3 may be detachable from a cooking
apparatus,” and that a cellular phone or the like may be used, and it would
appear that any of these would serve as an information terminal, the
operation of which would effect data download from a server to the cooking
device. Kudo ¶ 167.
Appellant additionally argues that Kudo does not teach or suggest “the
information terminal device 103 could or should have displayed any
information regarding which of multiple users (e.g., at least two users) input
an instruction to download a recommended menu item.” Appeal Br. 9.
(Emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that the input of a user ID, resulting
in displaying that user ID, is not in response to an instruction to download a
cooking menu, contrary to the Examiner’s position. Id. According to
Appellant, “the only display of a user ID in Kudo et al. is when a user inputs
his or her own user ID in the login page shown in Fig. 13 of Kudo et al.” Id.
Appellant additionally argues that Yeh also discloses nothing that meets the
claim limitation at issue. Id. at 10–11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
established that the input and display of a user ID into the field shown in
Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

6
Figure 13 of Kudo meets the limitation in claim 1 requiring, in response to
an instruction by a user to download a recommended cooking menu, the
display, on the one or more information terminals, of information indicating
which of multiple users input the instruction to download. The Examiner,
however, additionally relies on Figures 19 and 26 of Kudo as displaying
information indicating that “you” are the user who inputted the instruction to
download. Final Act. 8.
Appellant critiques the identification of “you” as simply providing a
generic term, which “clearly fails to provide any identifying information for
a specific user,” and “clearly fails to provide a display of information
regarding which user of multiple users has input an instruction (e.g., the
specific user that is logged in).” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant
asserts that claim 1 requires “the display of information regarding multiple
users that have input an instruction to download a recommended menu
item,” and that Kudo does not disclose the same. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s arguments relative to “multiple users” who input
download instructions, and the display of information regarding such
“multiple users” suggests to us that Appellant regards claim 1 as requiring a
plurality of information terminals being present in the system when multiple
users are present. Claim 1, however, recites that the system includes “one or
more information terminals,” which means the system may have one, and
only one, information terminal. In the case where the system employs only a
single information terminal, it appears that, even if multiple users may be
Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

7
able to, i.e., have permission to, access the sole information terminal,3 only
one user may do so at a time. In that case, and in accordance with Kudo, the
user (according to Appellant, “e.g., the specific user that is logged in”), upon
sending an instruction to download a recommended cooking menu, would
accurately be identified in a display viewed by the user as “you,” as
illustrated in Figures 19 and 26 of Kudo. The term “you,” in this context, is
not generic information; it is instead, information indicating which of the
users had input the download instruction, which is all that the limitation in
claim 1 requires. It can be regarded as, in effect, a confirmation to the user
that the information displayed was indeed requested by that specific user.
As such, Appellant’s “multiple users” argument also does not apprise
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Claims 6 and 7 fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kudo and Yeh is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7 103 Kudo, Yeh 1, 6, 7

3 Kudo, by requiring input of user ID and password, likewise contemplates
multiple users being authorized to access its operating terminal, server, and
cooking device. Kudo, Fig. 13, ¶¶ 127–128, 149.
Appeal 2021-002855
Application 15/119,761

8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019).

AFFIRMED