Ex Parte Sudolcan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2006

09908405 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID SUDOLCAN
____________

Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before FRANKFORT, CRAWFORD, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision from the final rejection of claims 1 and 6 to 17, which are all the
claims pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled and claims 3-5 have
been withdrawn from consideration.
The appellant’s invention relates to a volumetric module for controlling liquid
flows from a pressurized syrup container.

Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405

2
The prior art
The prior art reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is:
Peckels 5,507,411 Apr. 16, 1996
The rejection
Claims 1 and 6 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Peckels.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection and the answer for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejection and to the brief for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. As being anticipated by
Peckels. We initially note that to support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or
under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-
Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405

3
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
The examiner’s findings in support of the rejection can be found on pages 2 and
3 of the final rejection.
Appellant argues, in regard to claim 1, that Peckels does not describe a serial
data jumper movable to a first position that inhibits the flow of serial communication data
beyond the volumetric module as required by claim 1.
The appellant’s specification discloses that volumetric modules 35, 36 etc. for a
drink dispenser are connected in series as depicted in Figure 2. Each module 35, 36 is
serially connected to the next module via a bus 30. The modules include serial data
jumper 39 which includes a single throw switch 40 with and interface 41 to one of the
I/O ports 38. In the address assignment of the present invention, all of the switches of
the each module is set to the open position. The system first determines whether there
is a non addressed module on the bus. As the switches are all open, the only module
that is on the bus is the first module 35 and therefore it is the only module which is non
addressed on the bus. The system then assigns an address to the first module and
closes the switch in the first module so that the second module is now on the bus. The
system then asks whether there are any non addressed modules on the bus and
because module one has received an address, the only non addressed module is the
second module. The system then assigns an address to the second module. In this
Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405

4
way each of the modules is successively assigned an address. Because the preceding
module’s switch is open when a module is being addressed communication to that
module is possible. However, because the switch in the serial jumper of the module
being addressed is open, communication on the bus beyond the module being
addressed is inhibited.
Peckels describes a electronic dispensing system which includes a plurality of
heads 12 which when attached to bottles 14 control the dispensing of liquid (Fig. 1).
The heads are all in communication via antenna 16 to an on site dispensing center 22
(Figure 1; col. 7, lines 37 to 41). Peckels describes an address assignment process at
column 18, lies 3 to 24. In Peckels' address assignment process a head 12 is mounted
on a bottle 14 and thus the adjoined head and bottle are brought into operative
proximity with charging coil 162 or interrogator 25 and bar code reader 23. The bar
code reader 23 reads the bar code on the bottle 14 and an identification bar code on
the head 12 and supplies this information to the computer 24. The computer 24 then
assigns an identification number to the head and correlates the identification number
with the product in the specific bottle. Peckels discloses that:
With this . . . system 10A, the heads 12 no longer need a dedicated I.D.
number; the heads 12 will be supplied with a relative "zero" out on the
encoder 174A ane the computer will electronically set the encoder 174A
upon loading the head on the bottle 14(col. 18, lines 19 to 24).

Firstly, as the heads are connected in parallel, there is no serial communication
described in Peckels. In addition, as the computer sets the encoder 174A, after
Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405

5
communication with the heads and bottles. The encoder does not participate in the
communication between the computer and the heads 12 much less prevent serial
communication between the heads and the computer in one position. Further, as
Peckels discloses that the computer can communicate with several heads
simultaneously, it is clear that Peckels does not describe a system in which
communication between the heads and the computer 24 is prevented when the
computer 24 is in communication with a specific head (col. 17, lines 26 to 33).
As Peckels does not describe a serial data jumper movable to a first position
that inhibits flow of serial communication data beyond the volumetric module thereby
allowing the system controller to assign an address to the volumetric module as
required by claim 1, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 6
through 9 dependent thereon. Claim 10 contains the identical language regarding a
serial data jumper as in claim 1 and therefore we will not sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claim 10 and claims 11 through 17).
Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405

Παγε 6
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-2615
Application No. 09/908,405

Παγε 7
Law Offices of Christopher L. Makay
1634 Milam Building
115 East Travis Street
San Antonio, TX 78205-1763
Comment [jvn1]: Type or Paste
Address

APPEAL NO. 2005-2615
APPLICATION NO. 09/908,405

APJ CRAWFORD

APJ

APJ

DECISION: REVERSE

PREPARED: Aug 29, 2006

OB/HD

PALM

ACTS 2

DISK (FOIA)

REPORT