11467203 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

Ex Parte Bodin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 28, 2011

11467203 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4 AND INTERFERENCES 5 ___________ 6 7 Ex parte WILLIAM KRESS BODIN, MICHAEL LEE MASTERSON, and 8 STEPHEN JAMES WATT 9 ___________ 10 11 Appeal 2010-004470 12 Application 11/467,203 13 Technology Center 3600 14 ___________ 15 16 17 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 18 BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 19 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20 21 22 DECISION ON APPEAL 23 Appeal 2010-004470 Application 11/467,203 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 24 William Kress Bodin, Michael Lee Masterson, and Stephen James 25 Watt (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final 26 rejection of claims 1-7, 11-14, and 18-21, the only claims pending in the 27 application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 29 The Appellants invented a way of identifying contents of containers 30 (Spec. 1:¶ 0001). 31 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 32 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 33 paragraphing added]. 34 1. A computer implemented method for mapping a content 35 description to a container, the computer implemented method 36 comprising: 37 [1] using 38 a computer having a processor connected to a 39 memory, 40 a user interface, and 41 a mass sensor shelf, 42 [2] storing instructions in the memory adapted to cause the 43 processor to perform steps comprising: 44 [3] identifying the container using an identifier code, 45 wherein the container is placed in a storage unit to form 46 an identified container, wherein the identified container 47 includes an unidentified content; 48 [4] responsive to receiving the identifier code for the 49 identified container, generating an alert; 50 [5] displaying a plurality of predictive content 51 descriptions for the unidentified content on the user 52 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 7, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 13, 2009). Appeal 2010-004470 Application 11/467,203 3 interface, wherein the plurality of predictive content 53 descriptions is generated based on either a daily meal 54 trend, a seasonal meal trend, a last recommended meal 55 plan, a last recommended set of potential meal plans, or a 56 set of items removed from the storage unit within a 57 predefined preceding period of time; 58 [6] selecting a predictive content description from the 59 plurality of predictive content descriptions; 60 [7] responsive to receiving the predictive content 61 description from the plurality of predictive content 62 descriptions, associating the predictive content 63 description with the identifier code, and mapping the 64 predictive content description to the identified container; 65 [8] responsive to mapping the predictive content 66 description to the identified container, calculating a 67 current mass using the mass sensor shelf and associating 68 the identified container with the current mass; and 69 [9] responsive to calculating the current mass, 70 determining a depletion of the identified container based 71 on the current mass and a non-depleted mass for the 72 identified container. 73 74 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 75 Namisniak US 5,711,160 Jan. 27, 1998 76 Kiyomatsu US 2002/0066279 A1 Jun. 6, 2002 77 Zsigmond US 2006/0178947 A1 Aug. 10, 2006 78 79 Claims 1-7, 11-14, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 80 as unpatentable over Zsigmond and Namisniak. 81 Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 82 over Zsigmond, Namisniak, and Kiyomatsu. 83 Appeal 2010-004470 Application 11/467,203 4 ISSUES 84 The issues of obviousness turn on whether the art describes limitation 85 [8], calculating a current mass responsive to mapping the predictive content 86 description to the identified container. 87 88 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 89 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 90 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 91 Facts Related to the Prior Art 92 Zsigmond 93 01. Zsigmond is directed to sensing items stored in storage units 94 and performing related automated processes. Zsigmond ¶ 0003. 95 02. Zsigmond’s scanner can periodically (e.g., every 30 seconds, 96 every 15 minutes, every hour, or other regular or irregular time 97 period), in response to a user action (e.g., opening or closing a 98 refrigerator door), and/or other trigger (e.g., a weight change 99 detected via a weight sensor) read items tags for items stored 100 within the refrigerator. Zsigmond ¶ 00036. 101 Namisniak 102 03. Namisniak is directed to displaying the identity and storage 103 time of food items in a refrigerator and to warn as to when those 104 food items are approaching or have reached the end of their useful 105 life. Namisniak 1:12-16. 106 107 Appeal 2010-004470 Application 11/467,203 5 ANALYSIS 108 We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the art fails to 109 describe limitation [8], calculating a current mass responsive to mapping the 110 predictive content description to the identified container. Appeal Br. 14. A 111 similar limitation is in the remaining independent claims 13 and 19. The 112 Examiner found that Zsigmond described this at ¶ 36. Ans. 6. 113 While Zsigmond clearly calculates a mass periodically (FF 02), there 114 is no description or even suggestion this is responsive to mapping the 115 predictive content description to the identified container. Rather, Zsigmond 116 uses the weight change as the trigger for reading tags. That is, reading tags 117 is responsive to the mass calculation. 118 119 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 120 The rejection of claims 1-7, 11-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 121 103(a) as unpatentable over Zsigmond and Namisniak is improper. 122 The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 123 over Zsigmond, Namisniak, and Kiyomatsu is improper. 124 125 DECISION 126 To summarize, our decision is as follows. 127  The rejection of claims 1-7, 11-14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 128 103(a) as unpatentable over Zsigmond and Namisniak is not 129 sustained. 130 131 Appeal 2010-004470 Application 11/467,203 6  The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 132 over Zsigmond, Namisniak, and Kiyomatsu is not sustained. 133 134 REVERSED 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 hh 143