Ex Parte Sharpley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12760212 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
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