

Method and System for Making an Espresso Beverage: Starbucks patent application - nh
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100173054%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100173054&RS=DN/20100173054

======
gavanwoolery
Coffeeseur here. There is nothing novel about these methods, they all combine
prior art. It is not that different from trying to patent a recipe.

And on a side note, Starbucks has gone downhill a lot since its inception. It
depends which store you go to, as each one has differing levels of quality,
but in general the quality control is very poor (I notice many employees
pouring espresso, pre-made, from a pitcher -- espresso will go flat fairly
quick this way). I have recently become a fan of Pete's although their
locations also vary in quality. The taste difference between my local Pete's
and Starbuck's is very apparent.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
It's utterly ridiculous that I can make a better latte myself with a home
machine, Whole Foods espresso beans, and organic skim milk. Starbucks always
manages to make lattes that taste burnt, even with flavor shots and 2% milk.

I'm not sure why this is.

~~~
joverholt
Because they use an Italian roast, which is about as far as you can roast a
bean before it turns to ash. Dark roasts are usually preferred for espresso,
but there is a limit to how dark you can go. For drip brewing, you lose a lot
of the bean's flavor by roasting too much. Stick to the lighter roasts and you
will taste more coffee flavor and less roast flavor.

------
msrpotus
This actually sounds like a new device. I'm not an espresso expert so they
might actually be patenting something that already exists but it at least
sounds significantly different from the espresso machine I have.

~~~
pixelcloud
Its basically an auto-tamper and automatic espresso machine. I've never heard
of applying 500KGs of force to tamp down a shot though..

------
brodney
What is the point of 2-5 [0]? None of these numbers match up and it seems like
they could just say 31kg to start, in 1.

[0] 1\. A method of preparing espresso comprising: providing ground coffee to
a brew chamber of an espresso machine; performing a first compression of the
ground coffee with a pressure from about 10 kg to about 60 kg; performing a
second compression of the ground coffee with a pressure from about 60 kg to
about 500 kg; and forcing heated and pressurized water through the ground
coffee, thereby extracting espresso.

2\. The method of claim 1, wherein the performing a first compression of the
ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure from
about 15 kg to about 55 kg.

3\. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a first compression of the
ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure from
about 20 kg to about 40 kg.

4\. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a first compression of the
ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure from
about 30 kg to about 33 kg.

5\. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a first compression of the
ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure of about
31 kg.

~~~
alanctgardner2
I can see the need for two claims, one which specifies a range ( to protect
against similar claims with different numbers ), and a second which specifies
the precise, desired pressure. The intermediate ones are mysterious to me.

~~~
trothamel
Could it be to try to "claim" multiple ranges? With the idea being that if
someone finds prior art that covers one of the larger ranges, Starbucks gets
to "keep" the smaller ranges?

And if so, does anyone know where we can get a good deal on pitchforks?

------
pvirgiliu
It should be emphasized that many variations and modifications may be made to
the above-described embodiments, the elements of which are to be understood as
being among other acceptable examples. All such modifications and variations
are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and
protected by the following claims

------
pents90
Potential prior art here in a patent from the early 1990s:
<http://www.google.com/patents/US5337652>

------
akavi
Why is KG being used as a unit of pressure?

500 KG applied over 1 mm^2 is a VERY different amount of pressure from 500 KG
applied over 1 m^2.

~~~
astrodust
That's the pressure applied to a standard coffee basket, presumably, so 500KG
over the surface area of that.

~~~
BerislavLopac
What is a "KG"? If it's meant to represent kilogram, it should be "kg"
(lowercase), and it's a unit of mass, not either force (which is newton) nor
pressure (pascal, which is basically newton per square meter).

