Ex Parte Nicol et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13370254 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/370,254 02/09/2012 James Nicol 718199.1003 2712
98086 7590 09/05/2017
T ane. Powell PP
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 91302 WAGGONER, TIMOTHY R
1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98111-9402 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
patents @ lanepowell.com
freerksc @lanepowell.com
szmigulskim@lanepowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES NICOL and GORHAM NICOL
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention “describes examples
of beverage dispensing systems and methods” (Spec. 14).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A beverage dispensing system, comprising:
a point of sale having:
an input module including a user interface configured to
receive input from a human user, the input including a user
identification and data including a beverage selection,
a beverage selection module that is configured to receive
data from the input module that includes the beverage selection
and to identify at least one ingredient in the beverage selection,
a dispensing module that is configured to receive data
from at least one of the input module and the beverage selection
module, the received data including the beverage selection and
the at least one ingredient, the dispensing module also
configured to generate a beverage dispensing instruction that is
based at least in part on the beverage selection and the at least
one ingredient, the beverage dispensing instruction includes an
instruction for an action to be performed by the human user, the
user interface further configured to display the generated
beverage dispensing instruction; and
a beverage dispenser electrically coupled to the point of
sale, wherein the beverage dispenser is configured to receive
data from the dispensing module that includes the beverage
dispensing instruction and is configured to dispense a beverage
according to the beverage dispensing instruction, one or more
of the at least one ingredient is contained in a container that is
positioned remotely from the point of sale and the dispensing
module, the beverage dispenser further configured to send data
back to the point of sale confirming that at least a portion of the
beverage dispensing instruction was dispensed properly.
2
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
C. REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jennings et al. (US 7,577,498 B2; issued Aug. 18, 2009), and
Metropulos et al. (US 8,584,900 Bl; issued Nov. 19, 2013).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Jennings in view of Metropulos teaches or suggests a
“dispensing module” configured to “generate a beverage dispensing
instruction that is based at least in part on the beverage selection and the at
least one ingredient,” wherein the beverage dispensing instruction “includes
an instruction for an action to be performed by the human user” and “at least
one ingredient is contained in a container that is positioned remotely from
the point of sale and the dispensing module” (claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants disclose beverage dispensing systems and method (14),
wherein Figure 1 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
/' I
7 % ■: AS 1.V>
\ . .... ...... :
Figure 1 shows a beverage dispensing system 100 that includes a
point of sale 102, and a beverage dispenser 104 which may be positioned
integral with the point of sale 102 (| 12), wherein the point of sale 102
includes an input module 106, a beverage selection module 108, and a
dispensing module 110 (113). The beverage selection module 108 receives
data from the input module 106 including the beverage selection 124 and
identifies ingredient(s) that is in the beverage selection 124 (| 18). The
dispensing module 110 generates a beverage dispensing instruction 130 that
is based in part on the beverage selection 126 and ingredients 128, 134
(119). The beverage instruction 130 is sent to the beverage dispenser 104
that mixes and dispenses the beverage, wherein the beverage dispensing
instruction 130 may be automatically sent by the beverage dispensing
system 100 or in response to a user-initiated prompt/menu selection, and the
beverage dispenser can automatically dispense the beverage according to the
dispensing instruction 130 or offer the option for the user to confirm this
step before dispensing the beverage (120). A beverage selection menu 206
4
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
offers the user the ability to select various beverages and the beverage
dispenser dispenses the chosen beverage (Tffl 24, 27). The user can select a
beverage that is not included in the list by selecting an option to create a new
beverage (128), wherein pre-dispensing instructions such as the type of
glass to use and whether the rim of the glass should include salt or sugar
may be included as instructions to the user to prepare before the beverage is
dispensed, while post-dispensing menu may appear if steps such as adding a
garnish must be completed prior to serving the beverage to the patron (| 29).
Jennings
2. Jennings discloses a beverage dispenser in fluid communication with
a plurality of beverages contained within respective beverage storage
receptacles and operable to dispense beverages from the respective
receptacles (Abstract). Figure 1 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
Figure 1 shows a robotic beverage server 10 comprising a vertical
container storage device 13, a beverage container supply 30, a beverage
dispensers 40, 70, a beverage delivery mechanism 60 for transporting the
dispensed beverages from the robot to a user outside barrier 150, and a user
selection interface 95 (col. 3,11. 1—11). The user selection interface 95
comprises a touch screen that permits a user to input or enter a beverage or
mixture of beverages order into robotic beverage server 10 and the robotic
beverage server 10 dispenses the beverage order, wherein the user selection
interface 95 is configured to display or list the available beverages or
mixture of beverages and the controller receives the order and is
programmed to respond by sending control signals to the robot and/or the
other beverage server components (e.g., beverage dispenser 40) to begin
dispensing the ordered beverage (col. 5,11. 15—40).
Metropulos
3. Metropulos discloses a dispenser for providing mixed beverages
comprising an interface to input variable data and receive variable
instructions, wherein the server electrically operates valves to control the
flow of first and second liquids and water to the beverage dispenser spout
based on instructions entered at the interface and a pouring schema stored in
memory (Abstract). Beverages are dispensed according to a pouring schema
that may be a beverage recipe and may be preprogrammed by a system
manager or chosen by a consumer during operation of the system (col. 2,11.
2—6). The server electrically operate valves to control the flow of liquids
and water to the beverage dispenser spout based on instructions entered at
the interface and a pouring schema stored in memory of the server (col. 2,11.
25—28). The interface provides instructions to the user corresponding to the
6
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
size of beverage container to insert under the dispensing spout, for example
(col. 2,11. 47—50). The session beverage menu may be electronically
adjusted by a manager at the beverage dispenser through the interface (col.
11,11. 1—3). A speaker is provided that relays directions to the operator,
wherein the speaker operates along with the menu on the display screen to
give the operator additional instructions (col. 14,11. 4—9). The operator may
select a Bar Setup button to access bar setup functions of the system,
wherein, using the display, the operator may identify the ingredients which
are available to create beverages (col. 24,11. 26—31). The operator may
select a Creating a Drink button to access recipe-related functions which
include creating or editing beverage pouring schemas and various
components of each recipe, which include selecting or editing the size of a
beverage, ingredients for a beverage or amounts of each ingredient for each
beverage (col. 25,11. 14—24). A garnish selection screen is displayed and the
operator may create or modify a beverage recipe by adding garnishes using
the spin-selector (col. 26,11. 26—39). Instructions for the user is provided
which includes text prompting the user to fill a container with ice and place
it under the beverage dispensing apparatus form which the beverage will be
dispensed (col. 30,11. 21—24).
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims / 6, 16, and 17
Appellants contend Jennings is “deficient in teaching a human user
participating in the dispensing of the drink and its ingredients” (App. Br.
20). Although Appellants concede “Jennings robot bartender admittedly
interacts with a human,” Appellants contend such interaction is “on a limited
7
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
basis,” wherein “Appellants’] claimed invention is designed specifically for
the human to interact with it during the drink making process” (id. at 21).
Appellants concede that “Metropulos admittedly teaches instructing a
user to use a particular glass or add a garnish,” but contend “those
instructions are outside the scope of the beverage dispensing instruction.”
(Id. at 22.) Appellants point to the Specification that states “beverage
dispensing instruction 130 includes the beverage selection 126 and all of the
ingredients 128, 134 that are included in the beverage selection 126 and
optionally any additional information that is necessary to accurately
prepare the beverage selection 118.” (Id. at 22—23 (citing Spec. 119).)
Accordingly, Appellants contend “Appellants’] beverage dispensing
instruction only optionally includes any reference to garnish or glass type
and is instead focused on the beverage selection and the identified
ingredients — something not taught by Metropulos nor does the Examiner
allege is taught by Metropulos.” (Id. at 22.) Thus, Appellants contend
“[h]aving a server add a garnish ... is not coming from a remote container
nor is adding garnish in the spirit of Appellants’] definition of beverage
dispensing instruction in its broadest reasonable interpretation.” (Id. at 24.)
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s findings,
and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have
been obvious over Jennings in view of Metropulos.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
8
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the claims do not require that the
“instruction for an action to be performed by the . . . user” be for “a human
user participating in the dispensing of the drink and its ingredients” or
“during the drink making process” (App. Br. 20-21). In particular, claim 1
merely recites that the dispensing module is configured to “generate a
beverage dispensing instruction that is based at least in part on the beverage
selection and the at least one ingredient” that includes “an instruction for an
action to be performed by the human user” (claim 1 (emphasis added)).
That is, in claim 1, the beverage dispensing instruction is the instruction for
beverage dispensing which further includes an instruction to the human user
to perform an action, but nothing in the claim requires that the “beverage
dispensing instruction” itself is to the human user.
We agree with the Examiner that “[njeither [A]pplicant[s’] claims nor
[Specification ever claim or disclose a non-automated system where a
human picks up bottles or dispenses ingredients at will.” Ans. 7. According
to the Examiner, “[t]he claims, [Specification, and drawings clearly state
that the beverage dispenser is automated (para 0020) and the only
ingredients the user dispenses are garnishes (para 0029).” (Id.; FF 1.) We
agree with the Examiner that “the only beverage dispensing instruction
found in [Applicants’] [Specification, which is directed to the user taking
an action separate from the automated dispenser, is garnishing of a glass
before or after the beverage is dispensed by the automated dispenser (para
0029).” (Id. at 8.)
9
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
In particular, Appellants’ Specification (| 20) states: “The beverage
instruction 130 is sent to the beverage dispenser 104 that mixes and
dispenses the [beverage],” wherein “the beverage dispensing instruction
130” may be automatically sent by the “beverage dispensing system 100” or
in response to a user-initiated prompt/menu selection whereas “pre­
dispensing instructions” may be included as instructions to the user to
prepare before the beverage is dispensed, while “post-dispensing” menu may
appear if steps such as adding a garnish must be completed prior to serving
the beverage to the patron (FF 1). That is, according the Appellants’ own
Specification, the beverage instruction 130 is sent to the beverage dispenser
104 that dispenses the beverage, and the “pre-dispensing” and “post­
dispensing” instructions are provided to the user to prepare before and after
dispensing, including instructions for a user to use a particular glass or add a
particular garnish. Id.
Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we conclude claim 1 merely requires an instruction be
provided to a human user to perform an action, including a pre-dispensing or
a post-dispensing action.
Further, although Appellants contend that Metropulos’ garnish tray,
“which is an integral part of the cabinetry that houses all other system
components” is not a “remote” container “as claimed by Appellants]” (App.
Br. 23), we agree with the Examiner that Appellants “never define[] what
they mean by remote, nor do they clearly show in any figure what they mean
by remote.” (Ans. 7.) Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, we conclude claim 1 merely requires a
10
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
container for an ingredient that is not integral with (i.e., “remote” from) the
point of sale and the dispensing module.
We also note that although Appellants contend that the garnish in
Metropulos “is not coming from a remote container” and, thus, “adding
garnish” cannot meet “Appellants’] definition of beverage dispensing
instruction in its broadest reasonable interpretation” (App. Br. 24), nothing
in the claims requires that the instruction to the user is for adding an
ingredient from a “remote” container.
Here, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Jennings for
teaching and suggesting “dispensing module” configured to “generate a
beverage dispensing instruction” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3^4; FF2). In
particular, Jennings discloses a controller that receives an order and is
programmed to respond by sending instructions to the beverage dispenser to
begin dispensing the ordered beverage (FF 2). We also agree with the
Examiner that “[a]s clearly shown in figure 1 of Jennings the ingredient
containers (120, 122, 124) are located remotely from the beverage dispenser
(70).” (Ans. 6; FF 2.) Thus, in view of the broadest reasonable
interpretation above, we also find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Jennings for teaching and suggesting “at least one ingredient is contained in
a container that is positioned remotely from the point of sale and the
dispensing module” as recited in claim 1. {Id.)
Furthermore, Metropulos discloses a dispenser comprising an
interface to input variable data and receive variable instructions, wherein the
server electrically operates valves to control the flow of first and second
liquids and water to the beverage dispenser spout based on instructions
entered at the interface and a pouring schema stored in memory. (Ans. 6—7.)
11
Appeal 2016-006519
Application 13/370,254
Thus, Metropulos also discloses a “dispensing module” configured to
“generate a beverage dispensing instruction” as recited in claim 1. Id. As
Appellants concede, “Metropulos admittedly teaches instructing a user to
use a particular glass or add a garnish” (App. Br. 22.) That is, similar to
Appellants’ own instructions to the human user (FF 1), Metropulos’
instructions similarly instruct the user to add a garnish or select a glass for
use, for example (FF 3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Metropulos
teaches and suggests the beverage dispensing instruction “includes an
instruction for an action to be performed by the human user” (claim 1).
As the Examiner also notes, Metropulos’ beverage dispensers 14, 15
are “located atop of a cabinet and being connected by lines to the remotely
stored ingredients (6,8) which are located in the cabinet and drawers (48 and
62).” (Ans. 6.) Thus, Metropulos also teaches and suggests “at least one
ingredient is contained in a container that is positioned remotely from the
point of sale and the dispensing module” (claim 1).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2—20 not argued separately and, thus, falling
therewith (App. Br. 20) over Jennings and Metropulos.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
12