UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In Re:
`Inventor:
`Filed:
`Issued:
`Assignee:
`Title:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150
`James J. Farrell
`November 17, 2003
`December 5, 2006
`f’REAL Foods LLC
`Rinseable Splash Shield and Method of Use
`
`: Attorney Docket No. 215665-545040
`:
`:
`:
`
`IPR No. Unassigned
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the PTAB E2E
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
`
`
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 001
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 3
`
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................... 4
`
`A. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................................. 4
`
`B. Anticipation .................................................................................................. 5
`
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................. 5
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7
`
`THE ’150 PATENT ..................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Overview of the ’150 Patent ........................................................................ 8
`
`B. Claim Construction ....................................................................................11
`
`V.
`
`THE PRIOR ART ......................................................................................13
`
`A. The Neilson Patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,439,289) ...........................................13
`
`B. The Oberg Patent (U.S. Pat. No. 2,995,158) ..............................................20
`
`C. The Hansen Publication (WO 00/36925) ...................................................18
`
`D. The Karkos Patent (U.S. Pat. No. 6,164,575) ............................................22
`
`E. The Sato Publication (JP H4-136787 U) ...................................................25
`
`VI.
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability ........................................................................31
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 15 is Rendered Obvious In View of Neilson, Oberg,
`and Hansen .................................................................................................31
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 15 is Rendered Obvious In View of Sato and Oberg .37
`
`C. Dependent Claims 20 and 22 are Rendered Obvious in View of Neilson,
`Oberg, and Hansen .....................................................................................41
`
`D. Dependent Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious in View of Neilson, Oberg,
`Hansen, and Karkos ...................................................................................42
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 002
`
`

`
`E. Dependent Claims 20 and 22 are Rendered Obvious in View of Sato and
`Oberg..........................................................................................................45
`
`F. Dependent Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious in View of Sato, Oberg, and
`Karkos ........................................................................................................46
`
`VII.
`
`OATH .........................................................................................................49
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 003
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM
`
`I, Alexander H. Slocum, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert on behalf of Hamilton
`
`Beach Brands, Inc. in connection with the above-captioned Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150 (“the ’150 Patent”). I understand that the ’150 Patent is
`
`currently assigned to f’REAL Foods, LLC (“f’real”).
`
`2.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of November 17, 2003,
`
`which is the filing date of US Patent No. 7,144,150 (“the ’150 Patent”), as well as
`
`the technology at issue as of November 15, 2002, which is the filing date of the
`
`provisional application to which the ’150 Patent claims priority and is listed on the
`
`face of the ’150 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical opinion on concepts
`
`discussed in the ’150 Patent and the reference documents, as well as my technical
`
`opinion on how these concepts relate to several ’150 Patent claim limitations in the
`
`context of the specification.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider how a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“PHOSITA”) would understand the claims of the ’150 Patent and the
`
`applied reference combinations. For purposes of my opinions, I relied on the claim
`
`constructions proposed by f’real in a now dismissed patent infringement action,
`
`f’real Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01270-GMS (D.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 004
`
`

`
`Del., filed Oct. 3, 2014) (the “2014 Action”). I also reviewed the claim
`
`construction of “sufficient mass” by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR
`
`2016-01105 (Exh. 1010) for related U.S. Patent No. 7,520,658 that is a division of
`
`’150 Patent and shares a common disclosure. In reaching the opinions stated
`
`herein, I have considered the ’150 Patent and the references listed in Section V in
`
`the context of my own education, training, research, knowledge, and personal and
`
`professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $650 per hour.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this Inter Partes Review and
`
`in no way affects the substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`In connection with my analysis, I have reviewed the ’150 Patent and
`
`its file history and various other references provided in the list below:
`
`Exh. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150 to James J. Farrell (“the ’150 Patent”)
`
`Exh. 1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,289 to Jim L. Neilson (“Neilson”)
`
`Exh. 1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,995,158 to Elliot G. Oberg (“Oberg”)
`
`Exh. 1004
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 00/36925 to
`Asbjørn Hansen, Sr. (“Hansen”)
`
`Exh. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,164,575 to John F. Karkos, Jr. (“Karkos”)
`
`Exh. 1006
`
`Japanese Utility Model No. H04-136787 U1 to Toshihiro Sato et
`al. (“Sato”)
`
`Exh. 1007
`
`Verified Translation of Sato
`
`Exh. 1008
`
`Prosecution History of the ’150 Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 005
`
`

`
`Exh. 1009
`
`f’real Foods LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands Inc. et al., No. 1-14-
`cv-01270, D.I. 59 (D. Del. July 28, 2015).
`
`Exh. 1010
`
`IPR 2016-01105, Paper No. 10 (November 30, 2016)
`
`Exh. 1011
`
`IPR 2016-01107, Paper No. 10 (November 30, 2016)
`
`Exh. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,520,658 by James J. Farrell (“the ’658 Patent”)
`
`Exh. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 by James J. Farrell (“the ’662 Patent”)
`
`Exh. 1014
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/426,622 (“the Provisional
`Application”)
`
`Exh. 1015
`
`C.V. of Alexander H. Slocum
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I.
`
`7. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum vitae. Exh.
`
`1015. Here I provide a brief summary of my qualifications:
`
`8.
`
`I
`
`received a S.B. degree
`
`in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1982.
`
`9.
`
`I received a S.M. degree in Mechanical Engineering from MIT in
`
`1983.
`
`1985.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from MIT in
`
`11.
`
`I have been employed as a tenured Professor in Mechanical
`
`Engineering at MIT since 1998. I was employed as a tenured Associate Professor
`
`in Mechanical Engineering at MIT from 1995-1998, and an Associate Professor in
`
`Mechanical Engineering at MIT from 1992-1995. I was employed as an Assistant
`
`
`
`3
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 006
`
`

`
`Professor in Mechanical Engineering at MIT from 1991-1992. I was employed as
`
`a Visiting Professor at Cranfield Institute of Technology from 1989-1990. I was
`
`employed as an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering at MIT from 1985-1989.
`
`In addition, I was employed as a Mechanical Engineer at the National institute of
`
`Standards and Technology from 1982-1986.
`
`12.
`
`I am a named inventor on over one hundred US patents and have a
`
`number of additional patent applications currently pending before the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). I have been substantively involved in the
`
`prosecution of numerous of these patents.
`
`II. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`13.
`
` My opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law.
`
`I understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`A. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`14.
`
`I understand that in proceedings before the USPTO, the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. I have
`
`been informed that the ’150 Patent has not expired. Looking at MPEP 2111,
`
`because claims can be amended in Inter Partes Review proceedings, claim terms
`
`should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner as is reasonably allowed to
`
`reduce the possibility that an issued patent will be interpreted more broadly than
`
`
`
`4
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 007
`
`

`
`justified. Thus, claim terms are interpreted more broadly than they otherwise
`
`would be interpreted at district court in view of a fully developed prosecution
`
`record under claim construction principles outlined in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`15. First, I understand that a single piece of prior art “anticipates” a claim
`
`if each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method
`
`disclosed—i.e., the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim “obvious.” I
`
`understand that two or more pieces of prior art that each disclose fewer than all
`
`elements of a patent claim may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim
`
`obvious if the combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the
`
`claim and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have been motivated to
`
`combine the prior art. I understand that this motivation to combine need not be
`
`explicit in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. I also understand that one
`
`
`
`5
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 008
`
`

`
`of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is a person having ordinary
`
`creativity. I further understand that one or more pieces of prior art that disclose
`
`fewer than all of the elements of a patent claim may render a patent claim obvious
`
`if including the missing element would have been obvious to one of skill in the art
`
`(e.g., the missing element represents only an insubstantial difference over the prior
`
`art or a reconfiguration of a known system).
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge available to one of skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention in order to avoid impermissible hindsight. I further
`
`understand that the obviousness inquiry assumes that the PHOSITA would have
`
`knowledge of all relevant references available at the time of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that the USPTO has identified exemplary rationales
`
`that may support a conclusion of obviousness, and I have considered those
`
`rationales in my analysis. The rationales include:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`
`
`6
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 009
`
`

`
`(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods,
`
`or products) in the same way;
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F)
`
` Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art;
`
`(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`19.
`
`I have approached my analysis of the ’150 Patent from the perspective
`
`of a hypothetical PHOSITA at the time of the filing of the ’150 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ’150 Patent would be an engineer with at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`mechanical engineering or related discipline and at least three years of professional
`
`or research experience in the design of products that utilize fluid systems.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 010
`
`

`
`IV. THE ’150 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’150 Patent
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed the ’150 Patent to Farrell, which is entitled
`
`“Rinseable Splash Shield and Method of Use.” Exh. 1001. I understand that the
`
`’150 Patent was filed on November 17, 2003, and issued on December 5, 2006. See
`
`id. I also understand that the ’150 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/426,622 (“the Provisional Application”), which was filed on
`
`November 15, 2002. The very limited disclosure of the Provisional Application
`
`does not support the claimed subject matter of the ’150 Patent. However, all of the
`
`limitations of the claims of the ’150 Patent discussed below were well known in
`
`the art prior to the filing date of the Provisional Application. Thus, for consistency
`
`and to minimize confusion, my analysis will be focused on the state of the art prior
`
`to the filing date of the Provisional Application.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the ’150 Patent generally relates to blending
`
`machines for making frozen milkshakes, coffee drinks, smoothies, or other frozen
`
`drinks, and specifically to self-service machines for blending frozen substance in a
`
`cup. See Exh. 1001 at 2:48-63. But a PHOSITA would understand the alleged
`
`invention of the ’150 Patent applies to any device for mixing liquid, such as the
`
`mixing device in U.S. Patent No. 5,145,250 to Planck described in the Background
`
`of the Invention of the ’150 Patent. Exh. 1001 at 1:55-2:2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 011
`
`

`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed the file history of the ’150 Patent. I understand that
`
`originally filed claim 10 of the ’150 Patent (which was modified during
`
`prosecution and issued as claim 15) is drafted in Jepson format. I understand that
`
`claims drafted in Jepson format serve as an admission by the Applicant that the
`
`subject matter of the preamble of such a claim is the prior art work of another. See
`
`MPEP 2129(III). I understand that the Examiner acknowledged Applicant’s choice
`
`of the Jepson format, where the improvement/point of novelty is specifically called
`
`out, for original claim 10 of the ’150 Patent in a Non-Final Office Action, and that
`
`the Applicant affirmed his selection of this format. Exh. 1007, Non-Final Office
`
`Action page 5 (Exh. 1007 at 72); Exh. 1007, Response to NFOA pages 6-7 (Exh.
`
`1007 at 94-95) (showing Applicant’s response without contesting the Examiner’s
`
`classification of claim 10 as being drafted in Jepson format).
`
`24. The preamble of original claim 10 of the ’150 Patent recites:
`
`10. On a mixing machine for mixing a liquid contained
`in a vessel having an opening, the mixing machine of a
`type including a holder for receiving the vessel and a
`rotatable mixing element extendable into the vessel for
`mixing the contents of the vessel, the improvement
`comprising:
`
`Exh. 1007, Originally Filed Claim 10 (Exh. 1007 at 18). Thus, by using the Jepson
`
`format, I understand that Applicant admitted that each of the elements in the
`
`preamble was well-known in the prior art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 012
`
`

`
`25.
`
`I note that the Applicant specifically admits in the Background of the
`
`Invention section of the ’150 Patent that numerous prior art references disclose a
`
`splash shield. Exh. 1001 at 1:48-62. In acknowledging this, Applicant states that
`
`the present invention merely relates to a method for rinsing the prior art splash
`
`shields to avoid the “potential for carryover of mixed ingredients from one batch to
`
`the next” and without requiring “cleaning of the [prior art splash shield] remotely
`
`from the mixing device.” Exh. 1001 at 1:61-67.
`
`26. Additionally, the Specification of the ’150 Patent admits at least the
`
`following elements are within the prior art:
`
`• “These [prior art] patents describe a machine that allows a
`milkshake or other frozen drink to be quickly made from a block of
`ingredients pre-frozen into a serving cup. The frozen contents
`within the serving cup are broken into small frozen particles using
`a rotating blade, and blended with an added liquid also using the
`rotating blade.” Exh. 1001 at 1:29-34 (emphasis added).
`
`• “During mixing, material can splash from the cup onto the drink
`machine and surrounding area. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,328,263 and
`5,439,289 (Neilson) each describe a separate, dedicated lid
`placement mechanism that positions a lid onto a cup so as to
`minimize such splashing when the contents of the cup are being
`mixed. U.S. Pat. No. 5,145,250 (Planck) describes a mixing device
`wherein the lid and mixing device move axially together until the
`lid makes contact with the receptacle, at which time springs keep
`the lid in contact with the receptacle as the mixing head travels
`further into the receptacle.” Exh. 1001 at 1:48-59 (emphasis
`added).
`
`
`
`10
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 013
`
`

`
`27. Accordingly, I understand that the Applicant additionally admits that:
`
`(i) a mixing machine for mixing a liquid contained in a vessel having an opening;
`
`(ii) the mixing machine of a type including a rotatable mixing element extendable
`
`into the vessel for mixing the contents of the vessel; and (iii) a splash shield carried
`
`by the mixing machine and positionable covering the opening of the vessel were
`
`known in the prior art before the alleged invention of the ’150 Patent.
`
`28. Thus, I understand that the only claim limitations of claim 15 that the
`
`Applicant has not admitted as being disclosed by prior art are the following:
`
`a rinse chamber in the mixing machine, the rinse
`chamber having an entrance and a door moveable to a
`closed position covering the entrance;
`
`. . .
`
`at least one nozzle coupled to a source of rinse
`fluid and oriented to direct rinse fluid onto the splash
`shield within the rinse chamber.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`(i) “rinse chamber”
`
`29. As noted above, I understand that in proceedings before the USPTO,
`
`the claims of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the specification from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I also understand that claim terms should be interpreted more
`
`broadly than they otherwise would be interpreted at district court in view of a fully
`
`
`
`11
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 014
`
`

`
`developed prosecution record under claim construction principles outlined in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`30. Nevertheless, I understand f’real proposed a claim construction of the
`
`“rinse chamber” phrase in claim 15 of the ’150 Patent in the 2014 Action, which
`
`should be no broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase.
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this petition, I am applying f’real’s proposed
`
`construction of the phrase “rinse chamber” as “an enclosure in which a rinse
`
`apparatus is positioned to provide rinsing.” See Exh. 1009 at 6.
`
`(ii) “sufficient mass”
`
`31. Dependent claim 22 recites “sufficient mass to retain the vessel within
`
`the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel in opposite
`
`directions.” I understand that a similar limitation was recited in claim 1 of the ’658
`
`Patent was subject to an IPR petition in IPR2016-01105. It is further my
`
`understanding that the Board held in IPR2016-01105 that “sufficient mass” should
`
`be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and set forth that “sufficient mass” in
`
`claim 1 of the ’658 Patent meant “the splash shield is heavy enough to create
`
`sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to retain the vessel within the holder
`
`when the mixing element moves upwardly in the vessel from the first position to
`
`the second position when liquid is present.” Exh. 1010 at 15. Because of a slight
`
`variation in the claim language in claim 22 of the ’150 Patent I am applying a
`
`
`
`12
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 015
`
`

`
`slightly different construction of the term “sufficient mass” for claim 22, namely
`
`“the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the
`
`vessel so as to retain the vessel within the holder when the mixing element and
`
`vessel move in opposite directions.”
`
`(iii) “splash shield”
`
`32.
`
`I understand f’real and Petitioner agreed upon a claim construction of
`
`the phrase “splash shield” in claims 15 and 22 of the ’150 Patent in the 2014
`
`Action, which should be no broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`that phrase. See Exh. 1009 at 4. Accordingly, for purposes of this petition, I am
`
`applying the agreed-upon construction of the phrase “splash shield” as “lid for the
`
`cup opening.” Id.
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. The Neilson Patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,439,289)
`
`33. Neilson issued on August 8, 1995, which is more than one year prior
`
`to the earliest priority date of the ’150 Patent. Accordingly, I understand that
`
`Neilson qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`34. Neilson discloses a mixing machine for mixing a liquid (i.e.,
`
`milkshake) contained in a vessel/receptacle 14 having an opening. Exh. 1002 at
`
`1:10-13 and Fig. 1. The mixing machine is of a type including a rotatable mixing
`
`element 44 extendable into the vessel for mixing the contents of the vessel. Exh.
`
`1002 at 3:30-45 and Figs. 3A-3B.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 016
`
`

`
`35. Neilson discloses a milk shake machine
`
`with a housing 10, a platform 12 for supporting a
`
`vessel/receptacle 14. Exh. 1002 at 2:62-68 and Fig.
`
`1. Platform 12 is below the mixer placed within a
`
`portion of
`
`the housing so as
`
`to support
`
`the
`
`vessel/receptacle 14 in a location for the mixer to
`
`descend. Exh. 1002 at Fig. 1. Receptacle 14 has “a
`
`bottom and side wall defining an interior and an
`
`opening at the upper end thereof communicating with
`
`the interior.” Exh. 1002 at 2:66-68.
`
`36. Neilson also discloses that milk shake machines prior to its invention
`
`had the drawbacks of the vessel/receptacle not being positively supported on its
`
`bottom, which can lead to spillage, and cleaning difficulties at the point of
`
`attachment of the container or receptacle to the housing. Exh. 1002 at 1:35-45.
`
`37. Neilson attempts to solve the problem of spillage and cleaning
`
`difficulties in prior milk shake machines by including the support 12 to positively
`
`support the bottom of the receptacle during mixing operation, and including a lid
`
`16 being positioned over the receptacle. Exh. 1002 at 1:48-63.
`
`38. Neilson discloses that the lid 16 has a top wall 18, a tapered wall 20
`
`having a circular cross section extending downwardly from top wall 18, and a
`
`
`
`14
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 017
`
`

`
`lower rim 22 that can engage the vessel/receptacle 14 when brought into
`
`engagement. Exh. 1002 at 3:1-9. The lid seats along the upper edge of
`
`vessel/receptacle 14 to cover the opening of the vessel/receptacle 14. Exh. 1002
`
`Figs. 3A-3B.
`
`39. Neilson discloses that “the mixer head is closely adjacent to both the
`
`top wall and tapered wall of the lid when the mixer head is at its uppermost
`
`position and the lid is still in engagement with the receptacle. This promotes the
`
`removal of excess material from the mixer head and allows such material to drip
`
`down into the receptacle.” Exh. 1002 at 4:43-48. Accordingly, it would have been
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA that lid 16 of Neilson acts as a splash shield. Specifically,
`
`the lid 16 acts as a splash shield during mixing and when the rotating mixer head is
`
`withdrawn from the liquid by containing the excess material within the lid 16 and
`
`vessel/receptacle 14. Exh. 1002 at 4:43-48
`
`40. Neilson also discloses that the lid’s top wall 18 defines an aperture 40
`
`in which a mixer shaft 42 is disposed. Exh. 1002 at 3:30-32. The mixer shaft 42
`
`includes a mixer head 44 on its lower end under the lid’s top wall 18. Exh. 1002 at
`
`3:32-34. The shaft 42 is freely rotatable within aperture 40. Exh. 1002 at 3:34-35.
`
`41. Neilson discloses that an operator places vessel/receptacle 14 under
`
`lid 16 and actuates electric motor 38 to lower the lid 16 and bring it into
`
`engagement with the side wall of the vessel/receptacle 14 as shown in Figs. 6A and
`
`
`
`15
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 018
`
`

`
`6B. Exh. 1002 at 4:15-22. The lid 16 is moved downward with respect to stationary
`
`mixer shaft 42 such that when the lid 16 moves downward the mixer head 44
`
`becomes disposed up close to the bottom of the lid’s top wall 18. Exh. 1002 at
`
`4:22-29 and Fig. 3A. After the lid 16 is in position covering the opening of the
`
`vessel/receptacle 14, electric motor 86 is actuated to rotate the mixer shaft and
`
`mixer head and the gear motor 78 is energized to move mixer shaft and mixer head
`
`downwardly as shown in Figs. 3B and 6C to bring the rotating mixer head closely
`
`adjacent to the bottom of the receptacle where it continues to rotate in order to
`
`thoroughly mix the contents of the vessel/receptacle. Exh. 1002 at 4:30-36. The
`
`motor next moves mixer shaft and head upwardly to the top of the lid recess where
`
`the rotation slows to a stop. In one configuration, the motor 38 pulls lid 16 to its
`
`elevated position. Exh. 1002 at 4:53-55. Receptacle 14 and the mixed contents are
`
`then removed from the system. Exh. 1002 at 2:65.
`
`42. Neilson specifically contemplates and accommodates cleaning a
`
`splash shield. In particular, Neilson discloses that lid 16 is “readily detachable for
`
`cleaning.” Exh. 1002 at 5:66. “Any suitable means may be utilized” to clean the
`
`lid. Exh. 1002 at 5:66-67. Although a removable lid can make the lid cleanable, the
`
`need to remove it for cleaning requires additional steps by the servicer of the
`
`machine to maintain the machine. A PHOSITA would have recognized a need to
`
`simplify service and maintenance of a machine. This common need provides
`
`
`
`16
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 019
`
`

`
`motivation to a PHOSITA to search for a way to clean the splash shield without
`
`removing it from the machine because in a food store setting there is no time to
`
`remove the splash shield.
`
`43. Neilson also discloses that spline bearing 82 permits free up or down
`
`motion of the mixer shaft, but is operable to transmit rotational torque to the mixer
`
`shaft. Exh. 1002 at 4:6-9. In addition, Neilson discloses means to prevent rotation
`
`of cup or receptacle 14 during the mixing operation so that the operator need not
`
`manually hold and maintain the receptacle in place and against such rotation
`
`through indents 90 formed at the bottom of receptacle that receive corresponding
`
`detents or projections 92 located on platform 12. Exh. 1002 at 5:1-13. Even with
`
`the means to prevent rotation of the cup during mixing, a PHOSITA would have
`
`recognized that the lid of Neilson must still have sufficient mass to withstand the
`
`operational forces of a mixing apparatus with a motor-powered mixing element.
`
`The means preventing rotation of the vessel does not necessarily include means to
`
`prevent vertical separation of the cup from the cupholder during mixing. Thus, the
`
`lid (and the drive mechanism to which it is attached, including motor 38) of
`
`Neilson would apply sufficient mass (inertia) to the top of the cup to retain the cup
`
`in the cupholder during mixing and would apply sufficient mass (inertia) to the top
`
`of the cup to prevent separation of the cup from the cupholder during mixing and
`
`relative movement of the mixing element and vessel in opposite directions.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 020
`
`

`
`B.
`
`The Hansen Publication (WO 00/36925)
`
`44. Hansen published on June 29, 2000, which is more than one year prior
`
`to the earliest priority date of the ’150 Patent. Accordingly, I understand that
`
`Hansen qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`45. Hansen discloses a mixing machine for mixing ice cream into a
`
`semiliquid in a funnel or vessel having an opening. Exh. 1004 at 1:2-12 and Fig. 2.
`
`46. The mixing machine is of a
`
`type including a rotatable mixing element
`
`(i.e., auger with a spindle) extendable into
`
`the funnel/vessel for mixing the contents in
`
`the funnel/vessel. Exh. 1004 at 2:12-17.
`
`47. The funnel is an enclosure 8
`
`with a closable inlet 9 and a funnel outlet
`
`with an ice cream nozzle 38 closing and
`
`dispensing the bottom of enclosure 8. Exh.
`
`1004 at 4:15-18.
`
`48. The closable inlet 9 is closed by a lid 35 which is hinged to the inlet 9
`
`in a hinge 36. Exh. 1004 at 4:15-17.
`
`49. A PHOSITA would have understood that the lid 35 closing the
`
`closable inlet 9 is used in Hansen to close the enclosure 8 to prevent ice cream
`
`
`
`18
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 021
`
`

`
`from splashing from the enclosure 8 and to prevent rinse fluid during automatic
`
`cleaning from escaping from enclosure 8.
`
`50. Hansen discloses that in ice cream or milkshake mixing apparatuses
`
`“after some use bacteriological growth will take place, which may constitute a
`
`health risk to the consumer.” Exh. 1004 at 1:20-22.
`
`51. Hansen further discloses that for prior art devices to “prevent this
`
`bacteriological growth manual washing is required, which is time consuming and
`
`encumbered with the drawback that the result depend very much of the care of the
`
`operator.” Exh. 1004 at 1:22-24. This provides motivation to a PHOSITA to wash
`
`the splash shield in-situ and to seek out an automatic washing system.
`
`52. To improve the ability to keep bacteriological levels low for an ice
`
`cream or milkshake mixing apparatus, Hansen discloses a spray nozzle within the
`
`enclosure for pointing a water spray at the rotatable mixing element (i.e., auger
`
`with a spindle). Exh. 1004 at 1:17-19. Specifically, Hansen discloses “a spray
`
`nozzle 10 for pointing a water spray at the auger 3 for washing purposes.” Exh.
`
`1004 at 5:25-26.
`
`53. Hansen further discloses that a “vane wheel 14 is located in a
`
`transition area between the auger 3 and the auger spindle 4, causing a deflection of
`
`the water spray during a movement of the auger 3 past the spray nozzle 10. A
`
`heated water supply 16, a cold water supply 17 and a liquid detergent supply 18, in
`
`
`
`19
`
`Hamilton Beach, Exh. 1016, p. 022
`
`

`
`which liquid detergent is supplied form a liquid detergent container 53 via a pump
`
`54, and corresponding not illustrated control valves, allow various spraying
`
`concepts to be used for washing or rinsing the enclosure 8 and the auger 3 between
`
`the ice cream mixing.” Exh. 1004 at 5:25-34.
`
`54. Based on the water spraying system in Hansen, a PHOSITA would
`
`have understood that a rinse water spray nozzle or nozzles would be directed to
`
`spray rinse fluid onto all features and surfaces within the mixing enclosure.
`
`55.
`
`I also understand that the Examiner did not consider the Hansen
`
`reference during prosecution of the ’150 Patent.
`
`C. The Oberg Patent (U.S. Pat. No. 2,995,158)
`
`56. Oberg issued on August 8, 1961, which is more than one year prior to
`
`the earliest priority date of t