PTAB

IPR2014-00351

Euro Pro Operating LLC v. ACorne Enterprises LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Deep Well Cooker With Dual Heating Elements
  • Brief Description: The ’262 patent discloses a multifunctional cooking system comprising a deep well cooker with a plurality of heating elements. The invention centers on using both a bottom heating element and a wrap-around side heating element that can be selectively energized to enable different cooking modes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hlava in view of Nachumsohn - Claims 1, 13, and 14 are obvious over Hlava in view of Nachumsohn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hlava (Patent 6,274,847) and Nachumsohn (Patent 2,187,888).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hlava disclosed a deep well cooker with all elements of claim 1 except for a bottom heating element; Hlava’s cooker included only a wrap-around side heating element. Nachumsohn was cited as teaching the benefits of using both a bottom and a side heating element in combination to achieve proper heat distribution for functions like roasting.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hlava’s design to include a bottom heating element to improve performance and expand functionality. Petitioner asserted this could be achieved either by shifting one of Hlava’s existing side heating elements to the bottom or by adding a new bottom heating element. This modification was presented as a predictable solution to the known problem of uneven heating, drawing on the conventional wisdom in the art as exemplified by Nachumsohn.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration of a bottom heating element into a cooker that already possessed a side element was described as a straightforward task for a POSITA, yielding the predictable result of more uniform heat and versatile cooking capabilities.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nachumsohn in view of Vallorani - Claims 1, 13, and 14 are obvious over Nachumsohn in view of Vallorani.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nachumsohn (Patent 2,187,888) and Vallorani (Patent 2,778,914).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Nachumsohn disclosed a deep well cooker that met most limitations of claim 1, including both a bottom ribbon resistor and a wrap-around side heating element, as well as a thermostat. However, Nachumsohn’s heating elements were energized together, lacking the claimed "function controlling means" for selective energization. Vallorani was introduced for its teaching of improved oven control circuits that provide a "higher degree of selectivity of energization of a standard number of heating elements."
    • Motivation to Combine: Nachumsohn expressed a desire to create a cooker capable of "diversified phases" of cooking. A POSITA seeking to achieve this goal would have been motivated to incorporate a selector switch, as taught by Vallorani, into Nachumsohn’s design. This would allow for the independent or combined operation of the heating elements, thereby enabling various cooking modes (e.g., bottom-heat only, side-heat only, or combined heat).
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a well-known electromechanical selector switch to an existing cooker circuit was presented as a routine modification that would predictably result in enhanced functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Takikawa in view of Hlava - Claims 1, 13, and 14 are obvious over Takikawa in view of Hlava.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Takikawa (Patent 5,512,733) and Hlava (Patent 6,274,847).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Takikawa disclosed a cooker with a bottom heating coil, a wrap-around side heating coil, and a CPU-based function controller that allowed for selective energization. However, Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to modify Takikawa to include the claimed "temperature controlling means," such as a simple bimetallic thermostatic switch. Hlava was cited as an example of a prior art cooker that used precisely such a thermostat to regulate temperature.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings to provide increased user control, improve energy efficiency, and enhance safety—all issues identified in the art. Modifying Takikawa’s complex control system to include a simple, user-operated thermostat as taught by Hlava would have been an obvious design choice to make the appliance more user-friendly and reliable for basic temperature regulation.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a conventional thermostat into a cooking appliance was a well-known technique, and a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing this modification to achieve predictable temperature control.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Nachumsohn with Hlava, Takikawa with Nachumsohn, and combinations involving applicant-admitted prior art, but relied on similar design modification and combination theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "heating means": Petitioner argued this phrase should not be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. It was asserted that the claim itself recites sufficient structure for performing the function of heating—namely, "a bottom heating element and a wrap-around heating element"—and that "heating element" is a well-understood structural term in the art.
  • "temperature controlling means": Petitioner asserted this is a means-plus-function limitation. The claimed function is "regulating the temperature of said heating elements." Based on the specification and the Patent Owner’s litigation positions, Petitioner identified the corresponding structure as a "thermostat."
  • "function controlling means": Petitioner asserted this is also a means-plus-function limitation. The claimed function is "enabling said bottom heating element and said wrap-around heating element to be selectively energized to provide variable cooking modes." Petitioner identified the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification as a "conventional electro-mechanical switch," such as a double pole triple throw switch.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 13, and 14 of the ’262 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.