Ex Parte Sizemore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

11968922 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
11/968,922 01/03/2008 Sean S. Sizemore B2887 1010.1 (10.9) 9793
26158 7590 02/27/2017
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
COLLINS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
IPDocketing@WCSR.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN S. SIZEMORE
Appeal 2015-002461
Application 11/968,922
Technology Center 3600
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 13 and 15—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dispenser control system. Claim 18,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
18. A product dispensing system comprising:
(a) at least one beverage dispensing device of the type
including at least one dispensing valve activated in response to a
Appeal 2015-002461
Application 11/968,922
control signal to allow the dispensing of at least a beverage in
liquid form into a customer’s receptacle upon opening of the
dispensing valve by the customer;
(b) a dispenser controller located at a location remote from
and operatively connected to at least one beverage dispensing
device;
(c) both the dispenser controller and the dispensing device
including control circuitry which transmit communication
signals between the dispenser controller and the at least one
dispensing device;
(d) the dispenser controller further including a user
interface thereon for initiating activation, subsequent to receipt
of payment from the customer, of the control circuitry of the
dispenser controller and the dispensing device to, in turn, activate
designated one(s) of the at least one dispensing valves of the at
least one dispensing device and thereby subsequently allow the
dispensing of a prescribed quantity of a beverage in liquid form;
(e) wherein the control unit and control circuitry are
configured to the Multi-Drop Bus/Intemal Communication
Protocol.
REJECTIONS
Claims 13 and 15—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 13 and 15—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) as
being anticipated by Domey (US 2007/0215239 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2007).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner finds that “[tjhere is insufficient antecedent basis” for
“the limitation ‘the control unit’ in element (e)” of claim 18. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner further finds that “since claim 18 recites structure which
includes two components in element (c) that are types of ‘control units’, i.e.
2
Appeal 2015-002461
Application 11/968,922
‘the dispenser controller and the dispensing device including control
circuitry,’ the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because
of the ambiguity in the claim language.” Ans. 6.
Appellant informs us that “the control unit” refers to “the dispenser
controller,” and argues that claim 18 is therefore clear on its face. Appeal
Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument does not overcome the ambiguity in the claim
resulting from the two different types of control units in the claim as
outlined by the Examiner. For this reason, we are not informed of error in
the Examiner’s rejection.
35 U.S.C.§ 102
Claims 18 and 20 are independent. Appellant argues all of the claims
together. We select claim 18 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)
(iv).
Appellant argues that Domey does not anticipate claim 18 as it does
not teach “a dispenser controller located at a location remote from and
operatively connected to at least one beverage dispensing device” wherein
“the dispenser controller further including a user interface thereon.” Appeal
Br. 7.
Appellant further argues:
At best, Domey has a central computer (central cash register with
software) that receives information about food orders from the
beverage dispenser and may control the menu function on the
screen 20 that is at the beverage dispenser. Domey makes no
suggestion that the central cash register is more than a processor.
There is no suggestion that the central cash register has a user
interface on the cash register.
3
Appeal 2015-002461
Application 11/968,922
Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s position that Domey’s “central cash register is [no] more
than a processor” without a “user interface” does not appear to be supported
by the teachings of Domey. Domey describes both central computer
systems and a central cash register. See e.g., Domey ^fl[ 33, 38, and 42. The
central computer systems are described as essentially processors that are
“capable of storing numerous counter numbers and processing transactions
from multiple locations.” Id. 133.
Domey discusses cash registers throughout the Specification, for
example cash registers that are “used to determine the cost of the customer’s
order” (id. |40) and with reference to a consumer purchasing a cup at a cash
register (see e.g., id. ]Hf 22, 26, and 29). A “central cash register” is
mentioned only once and is described as being “within a store” without
much additional detail.
In the context of the entire disclosure of Domey, it seems apparent
that a “central cash register” is not the same as a “central computer system”
used merely for processing and storing information. Rather, a “central cash
register” would also be a cash register consistent with how the term is used
elsewhere in the Specification. Thus, it is unclear how a consumer can
purchase a cup or other item at a cash register without there being some
interaction between a user, whether the consumer or a salesperson, and the
cash register. One of skill in the art would understand the cash register to
include a user interface in order for the cash register to be “used to
determine the cost of the customer’s order” and to except payment. Id. |40.
For these reasons we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
4
Appeal 2015-002461
Application 11/968,922
Appellant also argues that Domey does not teach the “Multi-Drop
Bus/Intemal Communication Protocol” as required by claim 18. Appeal Br.
8. Appellant argues that at the most the Examiner has shown that the use of
this protocol is “highly probable,” but that this is not enough to establish
anticipation. Id. (citingBettcherIndus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d
629, 639 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Appellant also states that “the only protocol
discussed by Dorney at all is an anti-collision protocol for use with the RFID
tags.” Id. (citing Domey 117).
In response, the Examiner maintains the position that Figure 4 of
Domey shows a “Multi-Drop Bus/Intemal Communication Protocol.” Ans.
5. The Examiner further finds “that ‘an anti-collision protocol for use with
the RFID tags’ is an example of ‘Multi-Drop Bus/Intemal Communication
Protocol.’” Id. at 6 (citing www.weedtech.com/an200.pdf). This further
finding is uncontested by Appellant. As such, we are not informed of error
in the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 15—25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5