Lyco Manufacturing Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2021

2020004402 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 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.
15/213,299 07/18/2016 Daniel D. Maupin LYC 107 5765
22222 7590 06/25/2021
GEORGE R CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI 53589
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, LELA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2021 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):
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL D. MAUPIN, STEVEN W. HUGHES, JEFF S. ZITTEL,
ERIC J. JAMESON, and STEVEN J. SCHULTZ
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299
Technology Center 1700

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11. See Appeal Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed July 18, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed April
19, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 27, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief
filed May 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lyco Manufacturing,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART, designating our affirmance as a new ground
of rejection, REVERSE-IN-PART, and enter a new ground of rejection.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to rice cooking and rice cookers,
particularly in large industrial quantities. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 7,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br.,
Claims Appendix 15–16):
1. A continuous rice cooker comprising:
a presoak tank for soaking rice for at least 15 minutes and
to a rice moisture level of at least 40%, wherein the presoak
tank is a continuous process presoak tank;
a hydrating and cooking tank, wherein the hydrating and
cooking tanks [sic] is steam filled, and wherein the hydrating
and cooking tank is a continuous process hydrating and cooking
tank;
a first transfer mechanism connected to transfer the rice
from the pre-soak tank to the hydrating and cooking tank;
a cooling tank, wherein the cooling tank is a continuous
process cooling tank; and
a second transfer mechanism connected to transfer the
rice from the hydrating and cooking tank to the cooling tank.
7. A method of continuously cooking rice, comprising:
presoaking the rice in a first tank for at least 15 minutes
and to provide a rice moisture level of at least 40%, and
continuously moving the rice through the first tank;
transferring the rice to a second tank;
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

3
hydrating and cooking the rice in the second tank using
steam, and continuously moving the rice through the second
tank;
transferring the rice to a cooling tank; and
cooling the rice in the cooling tank, and continuously
moving the rice through the cooling tank.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zittel US 6,214,400 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Kendall WO 95/06416 March 9, 1995

Chen, Pre-Soak Brown Rice To Make It Cook As Fast As White Rice,
https://www.lifehacker.eom.au/2015/02/pre-soak-brown-rice-to-make-it-
cook-as-fast-as-white-rice/ (“Chen”)

Hinode Rice, Cooking Rice 101, http://www.hinoderice.com/all-about-
rice/cooking-rice-101/ (“Hinode”)

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kendall. Final Act. 2–4.
2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kendall and Zittel. Final Act. 4–6.
3. Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kendall, Chen, and Hinode. Final Act. 6–7.
4. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kendall, Chen, Hinode, and Zittel. Final
Act. 7–8.
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

4
OPINION
Rejections 1 and 2
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 3–7. We select claim 1 as
representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019).

The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Kendall, the Examiner found
Kendall discloses a steeping tank, corresponding to the recited pre-soak
tank, a steam cooker, corresponding to the recited hydrating and cooking
tank, and a hopper, corresponding to the recited cooling tank. Final Act. 2–
3; Ans. 5–6. The Examiner found Kendall discloses a conveying means,
corresponding to the transfer mechanisms recited in claim 1. Ans. 6; Final
Act. 2. The Examiner found that Kendall does not disclose that the rice is
soaked for at least 15 minutes and to a rice moisture level of at least 40%,
but the Examiner found these recitations to be intended use, and that the pre-
soak tank disclosed in Kendall would be capable of performing such
functions. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner found Kendall discloses that the process is a continuous
process, and alternatively, because continuous processes are widely known
in the food processing art, it would have been obvious to use such a system
to save time and energy. Final Act. 3.

Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

5
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that Kendall does not disclose a continuous pre-soak
step, rather, Kendall discloses the pre-soak step is intermittent, with rice
leaving buckets used to steep the rice in batches. Appeal Br. 10–11.
Appellant argues the cooker disclosed in Kendall is an intermittent cooker,
not a continuous cooking tank. Id. at 11. Appellant contends the hopper
disclosed in Kendall is neither a tank, nor a continuous process cooling tank,
because it does not continuously receive rice. Id. at 11–12. Appellant
contends Kendall does not disclose soaking the rice for at least 15 minutes
and to a rice moisture level of 40%. Id. at 12. Appellant argues Kendall
does not disclose a transfer mechanism that transfers rice from the pre-soak
tank to the hydrating and cooking tank, because Kendall discloses dumping
rice from buckets. Id.

Discussion
Considering the record as a whole, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments. We first observe that claim 1 is directed to a
continuous rice cooker and recites “wherein the presoak tank is a continuous
process presoak tank.” With respect to the pre-soaking process, the
Specification states “[p]referably, this is a continuous process using a rotary
drum, or similar continuous device, but can be in soak tanks.” Spec. ¶ 19,
see also Spec. ¶ 22. Thus, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus including a
presoak tank that is capable of operating as a continuous process presoak
tank.
We are not convinced by Appellant’s argument that a continuous
process presoak tank as recited in claim 1 would not have been obvious,
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

6
because Kendall discloses buckets 27 are “intermittently advanced upon the
conveyor line 50.” See Kendall, Fig. 1; 13, ll. 21–32. That is, although
Appellant contends nothing in the prior art teaches how to continuously
advance and process presoaking rice (Appeal Br. 10), the Examiner pointed
to Zittel in the course of rejecting claim 6, which depends from claim 1 and
further recites the presoak tank includes a rotary drum. Final Act. 4–6. In
this regard, the Examiner found the rotary drum blancher of Zittel has an
inlet where food products enter and an outlet, where food products exit. Id.
at 4–5, citing Zittel col. 3, ll. 1–33. The Examiner determined that it would
have been obvious to have used the rotary drum blancher disclosed in Zittel
for steeping (pre-soaking) the rice as disclosed in Kendall to further prevent
the gluing of food particles, which is a problem disclosed in Kendall. Id. at
5–6, citing Kendall 45, ll. 10–20.
In addition, we observe that Kendall discloses buckets 27 are “merely
schematic” allowing for different configurations to implement the steeping
and water absorption step. Kendall 10, l. 32 – 11, l. 1.
Thus, the disclosure of the prior art as a whole, i.e., Kendall and Zittel
as discussed above, supports the Examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to have used a continuous processing tank as the presoak tank or
steeping tank in Kendall, because such systems are commonly known in the
food processing art. Final Act. 3.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Kendall fails
to disclose a continuous process hydrating and cooking tank that
continuously cooks rice. To the extent Appellant’s argument is based on the
position that cooker 90 disclosed in Kendall receives rice intermittently from
buckets 27 (Appeal Br. 11), we are not persuaded by this argument for the
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

7
reasons discussed above. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that cooker 90 is an intermittent cooker due to the stepwise
advancement of rice through layers of the cooker. Id. That is, as the
Examiner points out (Ans. 5), Kendall discloses cookers, where a continuous
stream of food is cooked. Kendall 53, ll. 16–21.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that hopper 314 is not
a cooling tank. Appeal Br. 11–12. To the extent Appellant’s argument
derives from intermittent feeding of rice into the cooker from buckets 27, we
are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kendall
discloses the hopper is “typically a water filled bath which cools the food
granules.” Kendall 17, ll. 23–31. Kendall discloses food granules from the
cooker are released into the hopper and then exit out of the hopper through
exit chute 316. Id. In view of this disclosure, Appellant has not adequately
explained why the hopper disclosed in Kendall does not constitute a
continuous process cooling tank. See Ans. 5–6.
In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
cited prior art does not disclose soaking rice for at least 15 minutes, and to a
moisture level of at least 40%. Appeal Br. 12. As discussed above, claim 1
is an apparatus claim and Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s
position that the apparatus of Kendall, or as discussed above, the apparatus
of Kendall in view of Zittel would be capable of performing such a function.
See Ans. 6.
Last, we are not persuaded that the recited “transfer mechanisms”
would not have been obvious over Kendall and Zittel. Appeal Br. 12. At
the very least, Kendall discloses a conveying means, which as the Examiner
found, constitutes a transfer mechanism. See Ans. 6, citing Kendall 5, ll.
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

8
30–34. Moreover, with respect to transfer mechanisms, the Specification
states only that “[t]ransfers between tanks is accomplished by transfer
mechanisms 108 and 110, which can be found in the prior art.” Spec. ¶ 30.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Therefore we affirm the Examiner’s rejection. However, because we
have additionally relied on Zittel for its disclosure of a rotary drum blancher
as evidence of the widely and commonly known processing systems
discussed by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of
rejection.
In addition, because our further explanation does not impact the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4 (see Final Act. 3–4), claims 2–4 remain
rejected under the Examiner’s explanations.
Regarding Rejection 5, as discussed above, the Examiner had already
relied on Zittel in rejecting claims 5 and 6 (Rejection 2). Final Act. 4–6. In
this regard, we adopt the Examiner’s rationale for rejecting claim 5,
specifically, that in view of Zittel’s teaching of processing food in a rotary
drum blancher, it would have been obvious to have used the blancher of
Zittel in the cooking tank in Kendall. Indeed, Kendall expressly discloses
different types of steam cookers may be used. Kendall 53, ll. 16–21.

Rejections 3 and 4
In rejecting claim 7 as obvious over Kendall, Chen, and Hinode, the
Examiner relied on similar findings and reasoning for Kendall as discussed
above with respect to claim 1, but because claim 7 is a method claim, the
Examiner relied on Chen and Hinode for the presoak time recited in the
claim. Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

9
Appellant contends Kendall does not disclose continuously moving
rice “through” a pre-soak tank as recited in claim 7. Appeal Br. 13; Reply
Br. 2–3.
We agree with Appellant in this regard. It is unclear to us how
buckets 27 in Kendall meet the recitation of “continuously moving the rice
through the first tank” as recited in claim 7. In this embodiment, rice enters
a bucket through the top of the bucket and exits the bucket when dumped out
of the bucket and into the steam cooker. See Kendall, Fig. 1, 10, l. 27 – 11,
l. 4. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as obvious
over Kendall, Chen, and Hinode.
However, in view of the combination of Kendall and Zittel discussed
above with respect to claim 1, the method step of “continuously moving the
rice through the first tank” would have been obvious due to Zittel’s
disclosure of a rotary drum blancher that has an inlet where food products
enter and an outlet, where food products exit. Id. at 4–5, citing Zittel col. 3,
ll. 1–33. As a result, we enter a new ground of rejection for claim 7 over
Kendall, Zittel, Chen, and Hinode.
In this regard, we adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to Chen
and Hinode regarding the soaking time and rice moisture level achieved as a
result of the presoaking time (Final Act. 6) and apply such findings to the
modified system of Kendall and Zittel. Thus, it would have been obvious to
have presoaked the rice in the rotary drum blancher of Zittel as incorporated
into the system of Kendall for the time and moisture level recited in claim 7
to achieve the desired texture of the rice.
Appellant presents further similar arguments with respect to claim 7
as discussed above for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13–14. Such arguments are
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

10
not persuasive for similar reasons as discussed above. In addition,
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the soaking time and moisture level
recited in claim 7 do not address the Examiner’s reliance on Chen and
Hinode as discussed above.
Because the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to claims 8 and 9 is
equally applicable under the new ground of rejection outlined above, we
adopt the Examiner’s position and enter a new ground of rejection for claims
8 and 9. See Final Act. 7.
Regarding Rejection 4, the Examiner cited Zittel for support in
rejecting claims 10 and 11. Final Act. 7–8. We modify the Examiner’s
reliance on Zittel for claim 10 to be consistent with the new ground of
rejection discussed above, where the rotary drum blancher used as the first
tank contains an auger. Zittel, col. 7, ll. 9–25. Thus, we enter a new ground
of rejection for claims 10 and 11.
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–4 103 Kendall 1–4 1–4
5, 6 103 Kendall, Zittel 5, 6 5, 6
7–9 103 Kendall, Chen,
Hinode
7–9 7–9
10, 11 103 Kendall, Chen,
Hinode, Zittel
10, 11 10, 11
Overall
Outcome
1–6 1–11

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .

Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
Appeal 2020-004402
Application 15/213,299

12

AFFIRMED IN PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)