Ex Parte Agon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2019

13513780 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/513,780 07/10/2012
29157 7590
K&L Gates LLP-Chicago
P.O. Box 1135
CHICAGO, IL 60690
05/21/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fabien Ludovic Agon
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3712036-01595 6644
EXAMINER
LY,TOANC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2019 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):
USpatentmail@klgates.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIEN LUDOVIC AGON and MARC DELBREIL
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
Technology Center 2800
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15, and 17-27, constituting all claims
pending in the current application. Oral arguments were heard on April 17,
2019. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in due course.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a beverage preparation machine
comprising a card reading arrangement and a program stored on a memory
device and executable by a control unit. Spec. 1. Claim 2, reproduced
below is representative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A beverage preparation machine comprising:
a card reading arrangement for reading user identification
information uniquely identifying a user from a card;
a communication module for communicating with an
external server via a communication network;
a memory for storing ( 1) a processing step for which an
authentication is necessary, the processing step comprising a
purchase request for goods selected from the group consisting
of a capsule containing ingredients to be extracted or to be
dissolved, a maintenance part for the machine and an accessory
for the machine, (2) associations between user identification
information and the processing step of the machine, and (3) a
communication step of the communication module receiving
communication from the external server, the communication
step relating to an identified user in association with the user
identification information; and
a control unit that initiates execution of a stored
processing step only when there is a match between the
associated user identification information and the read user
identification information, the control unit adapted to perform
the communication step with the external server only when the
read user information matches the user identification
information associated to the communication step.
2
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10-13, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guard et
al. (US 2009/0219140 Al; published Sept. 3, 2009) ("Guard") and Deo et al.
(US 5,721,781; issued Feb. 24, 1998) ("Deo").
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 17-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guard, Deo, and
Gutwein et al. (US 6,759,072 Bl; issued July 6, 2004) ("Gutwein").
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Guard, Deo, and Majer (US
2008/0116262 Al; published May 22, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Claim 2
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guard and
Deo teaches or suggests "a communication step of the communication
module receiving communication from the external server, the
communication step relating to an identified user in association with the user
identification information" and "the control unit adapted to perform the
communication step with the external server only when the read user
information matches the user identification information associated to the
communication step," as recited in independent claim 2 and commensurately
recited in independent claim 15?
The Examiner relies on Guard and Deo to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. Final Act. 3--4, 12-13 (citing Guard ,r,r 29, 37--43, 49;
Deo, Figs. 7, 8, 4:36-50, 5: 12-31, 5:57---6: 14, 11 :64--12:6, 8:33--42).
3
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
Specifically, the Examiner finds Guard teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations, but Guard does not explicitly teach "the control unit adapted to
perform the communication step with the external server only when the read
user information matches the user identification information associated to
the communication step." Final Act. 4; see also Final Act. 13 (finding that
in Guard, "[ s ]ince authorization is required, the communication step is only
performed after authorization is verified."). Therefore, the Examiner finds
"Guard is capable of and suggests verification of a match," but Deo teaches
or suggests "performing the communication step only when the read user
information matches the user identification information." Ans. 4.
Appellants' arguments are primarily directed to the Guard reference.
App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue Guard "merely discloses an
optional authorization and/or verification process when the communication
is to the remote resource. Guard does not even teach an optional-let alone
a required-authorization and/ or verification process when the
communication is from the remote resource as is required by independent
[c]laim 2." App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants,
"Guard does not disclose a step of receiving communicati[ on] from the
external server only when the read user information matches the user
identification information associated to the communication step." App. Br.
7. Rather, Appellants argue Guard teaches "that the communication from
the remote resource is automatic." App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants argue Deo "fails to remedy the deficiencies of Guard'' and the
Examiner "previously recognized" that Deo failed to teach the disputed
limitations in a previous Office Action. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
4
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. Final Act. 2-14; Ans. 2-5. Guard is
generally directed to a coffee brewing apparatus configured to facilitate
interfacing with a remote resource. Guard, Abstract, ,r 27. The apparatus
may be configured "to automatically facilitate obtaining corresponding
responsive information from the remote resource 107 and to present that
information to an end user via the end user interface." Guard ,r 28. The
process "can optionally also provide for receiving a response from the end
user ( via, for example, the end user interface) regarding the information."
Guard ,r 37. This "end user input can then be forwarded by the processor to
the remote resource for corresponding handling." Guard ,r 37. As one
example, Guard describes the end user response as "acceptance of a food
component purchasing opportunity, the remote resource can respond by
completing the sales transaction and effecting delivery of the purchased
commodity to the end user." Guard ,r 37. Guard further describes that "[i]f
desired, the latter process can include some authorization and/ or verification
process to verify that the end user is authorized to effect such an order,"
which may involve, for example, presentation of a PIN, a user name or
password, or a bioidentifier. Guard ,r 38. In addition, Guard teaches that the
process "will also optionally accommodate communicating 206 with a
remote resource regarding other information," which "would permit, for
example, the end user and/or the coffee brewing apparatus to provide or
exchange information with the remote resource," regarding various types of
information including, for example, "direct end user exchanges with a
customer service resource" or "the exchange of promotional content."
Guard ,r,r 39--43. As yet another example, Guard discloses that the coffee
5
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
brewing apparatus can "permit an end user to upload and/or download one
or more user preferences as may be retained by a given remote resource."
Guard ,r 49. The "coffee brewing apparatus can access the requisite [user]
requirements from a remote resource (upon presenting, for example, some
appropriate identifier for the guest) in order to have those requirements
available for local use." Guard ,r 49.
Deo generally describes "[a]n authentication system includ[ing] a
portable information device, such as a smart card, that is configured to store
and process multiple different applications." Deo, Abstract. Deo teaches
the authentication system is configured to accommodate different security
levels based on the type of terminal. Deo 10:42-56, 11:64--12:6.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, we find Guard and Deo, as relied
upon by the Examiner, teach or suggest the disputed limitations. For
example, Appellants' arguments that in Guard "information is automatically
pushed from the remote resource 107 to the coffee brewing apparatus 100"
(Reply Br. 2) are not supported by paragraphs 37, 38, and 49 of Guard.
While some information in Guard may be automatically pushed from the
remote resource, paragraphs 37, 38, and 49 indicate that at least some
information may not be provided by the remote resource until after an
authorization and/ or verification process has occurred.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments with respect to Deo are also
unpersuasive. Specifically, we disagree the Examiner's reliance on Deo is
inconsistent with the Examiner's previous findings. The Examiner relies on
Deo to teach or suggest "the control unit adapted to perform the
communication step with the external server only when the read user
information matches the user identification information associated to the
6
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
communication step," which, when combined with Guard, is not inconsistent
with the Examiner's previous findings. 1 See Final Act. 4; Final Act. (filed
March 13, 2015) 5; Ans. 4--5.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Guard
and Deo teaches or suggests the disputed limitations, namely, "a
communication step of the communication module receiving communication
from the external server" (e.g., Guard ,r 37 ("the remote resource can
respond by completing the sales transaction and effecting delivery of the
purchased commodity to the end user") and/or Guard ,r 49 ("coffee brewing
apparatus can access the requisite [user] requirements from a remote
resource ... in order to have those requirements available for local use")),
the communication step relating to an identified user in association with the
user identification information (e.g., Guard ,r 38 ("process can include some
authorization and/ or verification process to verify that the end user is
authorized to effect such an order") and/or Guard ,r 49 ("upon presenting, for
1 In the previous Office Action, the Examiner finds Deo teaches "a control
unit that initiates execution of a stored processing step (col. 10, lines 26-30)
only when there is a match between the associated user identification
information and the read user identification information (col. 7, lines 21-34 -
a match is made when the public key properly decrypts a private key
encrypted communication, where public and private key are a matched
pair)." Final Act. 6 (filed March 13, 2015). The Examiner further finds
"Deo does not explicitly disclose a communication module for
communicating with an external server via a communication network; (3) a
communication step between the communication module and the external
server, the communication step relating to an identified user in association
with the user identification information; and the control unit adapted to
perform the identified user-related communication step only when the read
user information matches the user identification information associated to
the communication step." See id..
7
Appeal2017-007756
Application 13/513,780
example, some appropriate identifier for the guest")) and "the control unit
adapted to perform the communication step" ( e.g., Guard, as described
above) "with the external server only when the read user information
matches the user identification information associated to the communication
step" (e.g., Deo's authentication and Guard, as described above).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 2 and 15, for which
Appellants present substantially the same arguments. See App. Br. 9-10.
For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 8, and 10-13, which Appellants do not
argue separately. App. Br. 9. With respect to dependent claims 6, 7, 9, and
17-27, Appellants argue Gutwein and Majer fail to remedy the deficiencies
of Guard and Deo, which we find unpersuasive for the reasons set for above.
See App. Br. 10-11. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 6, 7, 9, and 17-27.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15, and 17-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8