Ex Parte SharpleyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201712760212 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. PERK-00101 8608 EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/760,212 04/14/2010 28960 7590 03/31/2017 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP 162 N WOLFE ROAD SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 John Sharpley 03/31/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN SHARPLEY Appeal 2015-0067351 Application 12/760,212 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1—23 and 25—58. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to order processing. Spec. 1,11. 10— 13. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The Appellant identifies PERK DYNAMICS, INC. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A network of devices comprising: a. an order entry device for entering an order; b. a data device for processing the order received from the order entry device, wherein the data device maintains a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city; and c. a dispensing device for dispensing an item based on the order processed by the data device, wherein the data device determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user and the city-wide order queue. Claims 1—23 and 25—58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting ineligible subject matter in the form of an abstract idea. Claims 1—23 and 25—58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pecoraro (US 2008/0201241 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2008), Holden (US 2013/0035114 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2013), and Wheat (US 2002/0095312 Al, pub. July 18, 2002). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 Appellant argues various claims recite “specific” elements such as an order entry device, a data device, a dispensing device, a brewing device, a distributed beverage making and dispensing device, a dispensing component, and a city-wide order queue. Appeal Br. 7—10; see also Reply Br. 5—6. The Appellant also argues the coffee machine “transform[s]” a digital order into a physical cup of coffee. Reply Br. 5. Because all claims 2 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 do not recite all argued devices, we must address each claim individually in the analysis of patent-eligible subject matter, as follows. The Examiner finds all claims “are directed to the abstract idea of processing customer orders comprising an algorithm for selecting the order processing locations and transmitting the orders to the order processing device.” Final Act. 2—3.2 The Examiner finds the claims are directed to a fundamental economic practice, a method of organizing information through mathematical correlations, and “similar to the basic concept of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options.” Answer 3— 4 (emphasis omitted). The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework, set forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent- eligible applications of [these] concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. (citing Mayo, at 1296—97). If so, the second step is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or 2 The Examiner also finds all claims “are directed to an order entry device for an entering an order; transmitting the order to a point of delivery for processing the order ... ; data device for processing the order received from the order entry device ... ; Dispensing an item based on the order processed by the data device.” Answer 3. 3 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (alteration in original) (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Independent claim 1 is directed to a network of three devices, each of which is for performing recited functions, including “a dispensing device for dispensing an item.” In the portion of the Specification cited by the Appellant for support of the “dispensing device (106)” of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3), the device is described as follows: “beverage dispenser 106 is any device capable of dispensing a beverage. In some embodiments, the beverage dispenser 106 is able to prepare a drink order/type and dispense the product of the order.” Spec. 7,11. 16—18. A system that includes, as a key component, a device that prepares and dispenses beverages, as is recited in claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2—21, are not directed to abstract ideas. Independent claim 22 recites: A system for processing customer orders comprising: a. a memory for storing an application, the application comprising: i. an order acceptance module for accepting orders; ii. an order flow module for controlling a flow of the orders received from the order acceptance module, wherein the orders are included in a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city; and iii. a dispenser interface module for providing dispensing control of the orders received from the order flow module; and b. a processor for processing the application. 4 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 The Specification describes that “order flow module 122 is able to control queues (e.g. using first in first out), flags to re-order back to a POS system and staged orders,” and describes that “dispenser interface module 124 is able to provide load leveling across multiple machines, sequence integrity of orders, re-order data capture and complete machine control.” Spec. 10,1. 25 to 11,1. 1. Because the application of claim 22 controls a machine, as part of the “dispensing control,” the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 22, as well as dependent claims 23, 25, and 26, are not directed to an abstract idea. Independent claim 27 recites a method of processing orders comprising two steps: a. collecting the orders at an order entry device; and b. transmitting the orders to a point of delivery device for processing the orders, wherein the point of delivery device includes an order queue display to enable a user to view an order queue including orders of other users, wherein the order queue [] comprises a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city. Collecting and communicating orders to a point of delivery, and displaying all the orders in an order queue, is a normal business practice, in both the case where the order queue is a complete queue or partial queue with some orders excluded. Thus, claim 27 is directed to the fundamental economic practice of receiving, communicating, and displaying orders, which is long prevalent in our system of commerce, and is, thus, directed to an abstract idea. Claim 27 is also directed to steps that can be performed through mental thought, with pen and paper, because collecting orders and transmitting them, and making them available for display, merely involves simple accumulation of data and communications tasks that are normal 5 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 human activities. A human user can receive orders from customers, communicate the orders collected to a different location, and make the list of orders available to users there to view in its entirety, where the orders were received from a variety of locations in a city, as recited in claim 27. Therefore, claim 27 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 27 also only recites that the method is “programmed in a non- transitory memory of a device.” Because the method involves only collecting, transmitting/communicating, and displaying, the “device” does not substantially alter the method, and is considered to be a general-purpose computing device. The Federal Circuit has held that if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. Id. at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson, [409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”). “[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent- eligible. [In addition, t]he bare fact that a computer exists in the physical rather than purely conceptual realm ‘is beside the point.’” DDR Holdings, 6 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The method of claim 27 can be performed entirely by human mental thought and basic input/output communications, such as with paper and pen. The addition of the claimed “device,” even if it automates the steps, does not alter the general nature of the claim from being directed to collecting and communicating orders. The device in claim 27, thus, does not substantially add to the method to remove it from being merely an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 27 is directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 28—30, 32, and 34—37 merely add tasks that can be performed mentally, or refine the nature of the data (e.g., recipes in claim 34). Dependent claim 31 updates machine settings, and is, therefore, tied to a machine, which means claim 31 is not directed solely to an abstract idea. Also dependent claim 33 specifies that the delivery device is a “brewing and dispensing device,” which means the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. Independent claim 3 8 recites a device, storing an application that is used for communicating with two other devices, and for determining a location from “a GPS location.” The Specification does not define a “GPS location,” but describes that “the delivery location is determined based upon order parameters, GPS Location, POS delivery location, and/or customer selected delivery location.” Spec. 12,11. 14—16. Because the location is used as input data to determine a delivery location, it could be data from any source, and would not necessarily require a GPS device to be part of the claimed system. Instead, a broad reading of the claim would encompass stored location data that is in the same form as if it came from a GPS device, but not actually requiring a special GPS device to determine the location. 7 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 Claim 38 is, thus, directed to communicating data and determining a location based on received data. These steps can be performed entirely through mental thought, or mental thought with pen and paper. The claim is, therefore, directed to an abstract idea. See CyberSource, at 1373. Claim 38 also recites the claimed system includes a memory and processor, but this can be a general purpose computer, all of which are capable of communicating data and making simple determinations using data. Claim 38 is directed to an abstract after the second step of the Alice analysis. Dependent claims 39-41 and 44-46 merely add application functions that can be performed mentally, and are also directed to abstract ideas. Dependent claim 42 sets machine settings, and is, thus, tied to a machine, which means the claim is not directed solely to an abstract idea. Dependent claim 43 specifies that the delivery device is a brewing and dispensing device, which means the claim is not directed solely to an abstract idea. Independent claim 47 recites a system comprising a “beverage making and dispensing device,” and a device that sends data to and receives data from the beverage making and dispensing device, “maintains” an order queue, and “wherein the data device determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user.” In the portion of the Specification cited by the Appellant for support of “distributed beverage making and dispensing device (106)” of claim 47 (Appeal Br. 4), the device is described as follows: “beverage dispenser 106 is any device capable of dispensing a beverage. In some embodiments, the beverage dispenser 106 is able to prepare a drink order/type and dispense the product of the order.” Spec. 7,11. 16—18. A 8 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 system that includes, as a key component, a device that prepares and dispenses beverages is not directed to an abstract idea. Independent claim 54 recites a processor, memory, and application comprising receiving and dispensing components and: a processing component for processing the order received from the data device, wherein the processing component receives a base setting and delta settings, wherein the delta settings are based on a location of the delivery device, wherein the data device maintains a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city and further wherein the data device determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user and the city-wide order queue. The Specification describes that: computing device 1600 [operates] to receive, process and/or send information to/from an order entry device and/or the beverage dispenser according to some embodiments. The computing device 1600 is able to be used to acquire, store, compute, communicate and/or display information. For example, the computing device 1600 is able to receive, translate and send requests related to beverage/item preparation. Spec. 16 11. 23—27 (see Appeal Br. 4—5). The dispensing portion of the application, in memory, does not actually dispense an item, in the way a dispensing device that makes a beverage does. Instead, in the broadest reading, it is a message to a machine, or person. The Specification does not define a “GPS location,” but describes that “the delivery location is determined based upon order parameters, GPS Location, POS delivery location, and/or customer selected delivery location.” Because the location is used as input data to determine a delivery location, it could be data from any source, and would not necessarily require a GPS device to be part of the claimed system. Instead, a broad reading of the claim would encompass stored location data that is in the same form as if 9 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 it came from a GPS device, but not actually requiring a special GPS device to determine the location. Claim 54 is, thus, directed to communicating data and determining a location based on received data. These steps can be performed entirely through mental thought, or mental thought with pen and paper. The claim is, therefore, directed to an abstract idea. See CyberSource, at 1373. Because claims 27—30, 32, 34^41, and 44^46 are directed to an abstract idea and nothing in the claims adds an inventive concept, the claims are not patent-eligible under § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27—30, 32, 34^41, 44^46, and 54—58 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1—23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 42, 43, and 47—53. Rejection of Claims 1—7, 11—15, and 17—21 under f 103(a) We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the combination of Pecoraro, Holden, and Wheat fails to disclose “data device maintains a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city” (Appeal Br. 20), because Holden “routes an order purely based on location of the mobile device and the nearest delivery outlet” {id. at 15). The claim does not limit the manner in which a priority of orders is determined. The Specification describes by example that “the data device 108 maintains an order queue priority so that orders placed are processed in the correct order such as first in first out.” Spec. 9,11. 17—19. Thus, we construe that an order priority may be in the order received. 10 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 Pecoraro discloses “[b]y clicking a virtual button for placing an order, the drink specification message for the profile is sent to the central server computer 101 over the Internet 100 and is stored in the central database 102.” Pecoraro 1101. Pecoraro, thus, discloses that all orders are stored in the central database, which, therefore, would also encompass all city-wide orders. Pecoraro is, thus, capable of maintaining a city-wide order queue. Pecoraro also discloses its “central server computer 101 processes the message and dispatches the order to a service station 104 in a location chosen by the user.” Id. We interpret this to mean Pecoraro processes orders in the sequence they are received. Pecoraro, therefore, meets the claim language of “data device maintains a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city.” We are also not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the combination fails to disclose “wherein the data device determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user and the city-wide order queue,” because Holden “routes an order purely based on location of the mobile device and the nearest delivery outlet.” Appeal Br. 15, 20. Holden discloses the “ordering customer’s message and his location are transmitted from the mobile device to a server and then to a client device (either another mobile device, a PC or other networked device) managed by the establishment.” Holden 123.3 Holden also discloses that the customer’s location may be determined via GPS. Holden 128.4 3 This is also disclosed in Holden’s parent application 11/697,617, as evidenced by issued patent Vengroff et al. (US 7,840,224 B2, iss. Nov. 23, 2010, filed Apr. 6, 2007), at column 5, lines 8—12. 4 This is also disclosed at Vengroff et al., column 6, lines 63—66. 11 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 The ordinary artisan would recognize that working orders in the sequence received, and using a customer’s GPS location that is transmitted with the order, meets the claim language of determining a delivery location based on a GPS location of the user and the order queue, as claimed. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and also of dependent claims 2—7, 11—15, and 17—21, that were not argued separately. Appeal Br. 20. Rejection of Claims 8—10 under §103 Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the data device is for storing statistical data and performance data, wherein the performance data includes a comparison of revenue of a plurality of locations.” Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the data device is for storing error data, wherein the error data includes codes defined for each type of error, machine information and location information.” Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the data device is for storing alerts, wherein the alerts specify which device an alert is for and what specifically needs to be addressed for the device to function properly.” We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments that paragraphs 105 and 205 of Pecoraro fail to disclose comparisons, error data, or alerts. Appeal Br. 12. Pecoraro discloses “central database 102 associated with the central server 101 is the repository for all information, such as customer data, recipe data, order history, machine inventory data, and supply chain data.” Pecoraro 1105. The language of claims 9 and 10 is functional. Pecoraro is, thus, capable of also storing all the claimed data that is claimed as being stored by the data device (“the data device is for storing”). As 12 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 functional language, we are required to give this language weight to the extent that the prior art is or is not capable of meeting the limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 8—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claim 16 under §103 Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the delivery location includes a location with a shortest wait time within a user-specified distance of a current location of a user.” Claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, recites that the data device “determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user and the city-wide order queue.” We construe claim 16 to require that the location with the shortest wait time not be excluded, but do not construe the claim to require that the location be based on wait time, because the language of claim 16 does not alter the determining of a location recited in claim 1. Therefore, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that “there is nothing in Wheat regarding a user-specified distance of a current location of a user.” Appeal Br. 17. None of Pecoraro, Holden, or Wheat excludes a location with a shortest wait time, and, therefore, the combination meets the language recited in claim 16. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 13 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 Rejection of Claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 under f103 We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that “Pecoraro, Holden, Wheat and their combination do not teach wherein the orders are included in a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city” (Appeal Br. 20), for the same reasons we advanced above at claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 22, as well as dependent claims 23, 25, and 26 that were not argued separately. Id. at 21. Rejection of Claims 27—37 under f103 We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the combination does not teach “an order queue display to enable a user to view an order queue including orders of other users,” because Pecoraro does not disclose displaying an order queue including orders of other users. Appeal Br. 12— 13. The Specification describes “data device 108 is able to present the order queue display on a user’s device (e.g. mobile device) or another device.” Spec. 10,11. 6—7. We, thus, construe the claimed “user” and “other users” as customers who place orders. The Examiner finds the limitation disclosed in Pecoraro at Figure 12, at paragraphs 78, 105, 134, and “0771.”5 Final Act. 4—5; Answer 7. Figure 12 of Pecoraro discloses an order history for a viewing user, and also has links for “My Friends.” Pecoraro Fig. 12. Paragraph 78 5 We are not able to determine what the Examiner means by paragraph “077i” of Pecoraro, because the highest numbered paragraph is paragraph 215. 14 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 discloses details of the “My Friends” screen (also shown in Figure 13), which is for “recipe sharing.” Id. 178. Here, what is missing is any display of orders of other users, or orders in a queue. Paragraph 105 describes a central database and a local database, where the central database stores all information, such as orders, but the local database manages local orders until fulfillment. Id. 1105. This paragraph does not disclose the display of any orders. Paragraph 134 discloses the local machine may “display a message on the machine monitor that the drink for customer X (a given name or a reference number) is ready for pick up.” Id. 1134. Displaying a message about a single order is not the display of an order queue. We, thus, agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has not established that claim 27 is obvious over the combination of Pecoraro, Holden, and Wheat. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 27, nor of dependent claims 28—37. Rejection of Claims 38—46 under § 103 We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the combination does not teach that orders are included in a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city, or determining a location of the point of delivery device based upon a GPS location (Appeal Br. 21—22), for the same reasons we advanced above at claim 1. We also are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the cited references do not teach communicating periodic future orders. Id. The Specification describes that future orders are able to be placed. For example, if at 5:00pm, a user plans on being at a location at 8:00pm and wants to have a 15 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 cup of coffee waiting for them, they are able to place a future order so that the order is prepared to be ready at 8:00pm. Spec. 10,11. 11—13. We, thus, construe a “future order” as an order that is not for immediate fulfillment. The Specification further provides an example of a “periodic future order,” describing “if every morning during the workweek, a user stops at a coffee location at 5:00am, the user is able to set a schedule so that every day of the workweek, his coffee is ready for him at that location at that time.” Id. at 11. 14—16. We, thus, construe a periodic future order as a future order at a regular interval. However, the claim does not require that the periodic order be generated automatically, but only that the “device” communicates such an order. Pecoraro discloses future orders, in that “one could place an order a little in advance, rendezvousing with the drink when it is ready, or retrieving it from warm storage shortly after it is ready.” Pecoraro 149. Pecoraro also discloses the ability to repeat a past order, because “[i]f a user has an account and has already saved his favorite drink in the system, he may place his order using cell-phone 97.” Id. Pecoraro’s server is in communication with a point of delivery device {id. 126), and is, thus, capable of communicating periodic future orders, as claimed. See In re Schreiber, at 1477-78. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 38, as well as dependent claims 39-46 that were not argued separately. Appeal Br. 22. 16 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 Rejection of Claims 47—53 under f103 Independent claim 47 recites: A system for collecting and storing data comprising: a. a distributed beverage making and dispensing device; and b. a centralized data device containing an application having a database and an interface that collects the data from the distributed beverage making and dispensing device and stores the data in the database, wherein the centralized data device sends a base setting to distributed beverage making and dispensing devices and delta settings based on characteristics of a location of each of the distributed beverage making and dispensing devices, wherein the centralized data device maintains a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city and further wherein the data device determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user and the city wide order queue. We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Pecoraro fails to disclose a centralized data device sending to a distributed beverage making and dispensing device “settings based on characteristics of a location” of a beverage making and distribution device.6 Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner asserts that the sending of settings based on characteristics of a location is disclosed at paragraphs 71, 72, and 190 of 6 The Specification provides an example of settings based on characteristics of a location of a dispensing machine, describing a base recipe is distributed to all of the local brewing/dispensing machines, and then deltas or differences are able to be sent/used based on the specific location. For example, a base recipe for making coffee includes brewing the coffee for 20 seconds which is the desired amount of time at sea level, but a delta is also sent which increases the infusion time to 23 seconds for locations at higher elevation. Spec. 16,11. 18-22. 17 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 Pecoraro. Final Act. 5; see also Answer 7. Paragraphs 71 and 72 disclose a user interface to permit an ordering customer to customize a drink’s ingredients. Pecoraro Tflf 71—72. Paragraph 190 discloses calculating and communicating to a user nutritional information about the drink, and checking for and communicating alerts about allergies to ingredients. Id. 1 190. The three paragraphs do not disclose or suggest a server sending information based on a location of a dispensing machine, as claimed. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 47, nor of dependent claims 48—53. Rejection of Claims 54—58 under §103 Independent claim 54 recites: A delivery device comprising: a. a memory for storing an application, the application comprising: i. a receiving component for receiving an order from a data device; ii. a processing component for processing the order received from the data device, wherein the processing component receives a base setting and delta settings, wherein the delta settings are based on a location of the delivery device, wherein the data device maintains a city-wide order queue to prioritize orders among locations within a city and further wherein the data device determines a delivery location based upon a GPS location of a user and the city-wide order queue; and iii. a dispensing component for dispensing an item based on the order; and b. a processor for processing the application. 18 Appeal 2015-006735 Application 12/760,212 We construe the received base and delta settings as being part of the order and affects what is dispensed. See Spec. 16,11. 18—22. We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Pecoraro fails to disclose sending delta settings based on a location of a dispensing machine, to the location of the dispensing machine, for dispensing the order, for essentially the same reasons we advanced above at claim 47. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 54, nor of dependent claims 55—58. DECISION We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1—23, 25, 26,31,33,42, 43, and 47-53. We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 27—30, 32, 34-41, 44-46, and 5^U58. We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—23, 25, 26, and 38—46. We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 27—37 and 47—58. 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-IN-PART 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation