Ex Parte Robinson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2009

10943802 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW ROBINSON and BILL ADAM
____________

Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 June 19, 2009
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andrew Robinson, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-24 and 27-51. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2

THE INVENTION
The invention is a method of providing information regarding grocery
items. The method comprises displaying grocery items for sale with a
graphic user interface (GUI). The method provides recipe links on the GUI
associated with select grocery items for sale and displaying recipes upon
activation of a recipe link. Specification [0007].
Claims 1 and 45, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of providing information
regarding grocery items, the method comprising:
displaying grocery items for sale with a
graphic user interface (GUI);
providing recipe links on the GUI, each
recipe link associated with and displayed with a
select grocery item for sale that can be used as an
ingredient in a recipe; and

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Nov. 21, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 24,
2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 24, 2008).

Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

3
displaying related recipes upon activation of
one of the recipe links associated with a select
grocery item for sale.

45. A controller comprising:
a complier adapted to recognize at least one
of food preparations, cooking equipment names,
preparation processes and cooking processes from
text files presented to it.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Owens
Fine
US 2003/0004831 A1
US 2003/0171944 A1
Jan. 2, 2003
Sep. 11, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17-24, and 27-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Owens.
2. Claims 5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Owens and Fine.

ARGUMENTS
The Appellants provide separate arguments for independent claims 1,
13, 23, 29, 36, and 45 and dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 19, and 51, but not for
claims dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 14-18, 20-22, 24, 27-8, 30-35, 37-44,
and 46-50. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 14-18, 20-22, 24, 27-8,
30-35, 37-44, and 46-50 will stand or fall with the independent claim from
which they depend.
Claim 1
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

4
The Appellants argue that Owens does not describe “providing recipe
links on the GUI, each recipe link associated with and displayed with a
select grocery item for sale that can be used as an ingredient in a recipe.”
App. Br. 6. The Appellants contend that Owens describes links that are
related to combining items in a personal pantry list or shopping cart to create
recipes and not a link for each associated item. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that Owens in Figure 73 depicts this
limitation with the “Suggest Recipe” links. Ans. 14.
Claim 12
The Appellants argue that Owens does not describe “mapping recipes
with grocery items via universal product codes.” App. Br. 8. The
Appellants further argue that while Figure 62 of Owens depicts UPC codes,
Owens does not describe using the UPC to map recipes with grocery items.
Id.
The Examiner responds that Owens describes using the UPC code to
obtain information for at least one grocery item in paragraph 39. Ans. 15
Claim 13
The Appellants argue, as with claim 1 above, that Owens does not
describe “each recipe link being associated with and displayed with one of
the available products” (App. Br. 8) and, further, that Owens does not
describe “filtering the list of recipes with select parameters” (App. Br. 9).
The Examiner responds that Owens teaches the user having the ability
to alter recipes to meet dietary requirements including identifying specific
products that meet selected dietary preferences in paragraph 18 and filtering
the user’s grocery list by dietary requirements in paragraph 22. Ans. 15.
Claim 19
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

5
The Appellants argue that Owens does not describe “linking coupons
to the available products in the recipe.” The Appellants further argue that
while Figure 60 shows a “Print Coupons for this Store” link, there is no
indication that the coupons are related to recipes. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that Owens teaches a system in which the
availability of coupons can be automatically linked to the products selection
in paragraph 188. Ans. 15.
Claim 23
First, the Appellants argue that Owens does not describe the step of
“linking the product with related information in a second data source via
UPC mapping” since Owens merely illustrates UPC codes in Figure 62 but
does not describe how the linking take place. App. Br. 10. Second, the
Appellants argue, similar to the argument made for claim 1, that Owens does
not describe “displaying product with an associated link to the related
information, wherein a user must activate the link associated with the
product before the related information is provided” and “wherein the related
information is recipes,” App. Br. 10-11. Finally, the Appellants argue that
Figures 72-77 of Owens do not describe “filtering the related information
pursuant to select parameters, wherein the select parameters are nutritional
requirements.” App. Br. 11.
First, the Examiner responds that Owens in paragraph 188 discloses
that the availability of coupons is automatically linked to the product
selected. Ans. 15-16. Second, the Examiner responds that Owens in Figure
73 depicts this limitation with the “Suggest Recipe” links. Ans. 16.
Claim 29
The Appellants argue that Owens does not describe
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

6
generating a list of recipes containing a selected
product via universal product code mapping upon
activation of a recipe link that was displayed on
the same GUI screen with the associated product,
wherein each recipe link is displayed next to an
associated product that is used as an ingredient in
the recipe
for the same reasons as argued with respect to claim 1 and, further, that
Owens does not describe “filtering the list of recipes with select
parameters.” App. Br. 12.
The Examiner refers to his previous responses in addressing this
argument. Ans. 16.
Claim 36
The Appellants argue that Owens does not describe a system
wherein, in response to the activation of a recipe
link that is associated with and displayed with the
item for sale, the server is adapted to retrieve
recipes via universal product code mapping having
the associated item as an ingredient from the first
data base and calculate the nutritional information
per serving for each recipe using the nutritional
information in the second database
since Figures 73 and 75 and paragraph [0244] of Owens does not describe
how the retrieval of recipes takes place. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that Owens teaches obtaining product
information using a UPC code in paragraph 39 and therefore teaches this
claimed limitation. Ans. 17.
Claim 45
The Appellants argue that Figure 75 of Owens does not describe “a
complier adapted to recognize at least one of food preparations, cooking
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

7
equipment names, preparation processes and cooking processes from text
files presented to it.” App. Br. 14.
The Examiner responds that Figure 75 of Owens displays text on how
to prepare food and therefore, teaches the claimed invention. Ans. 17.
Claim 51
The Appellants argue that Owens does not describe “generating the
list or recipes using universal product code (UPC) mapped food data.” App.
Br. 15.
The Examiner refers to his previous responses in addressing this
argument. Ans. 17.
Claim 5
The Appellants argue that neither Owens nor Fine describe “linking
coupons to ingredients in recipes.” App. Br. 17. Further, the Appellants
argue that the “Print Coupons for this Store” link depicted in Figure 61 does
not describe this claimed limitation. Id.
The Examiner does not respond to this argument.
Claim 7
The Appellants argue, as argued for claim 5, that neither Owen nor
Fine describes “linking coupons to ingredients in recipes.” App. Br. 17.
Further, the Appellants argue that the “Print Coupons for this Store” link
depicted in Figure 61 does not describe this claimed limitation. Id.
Again, the Examiner does not respond to this argument.
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

8
ISSUES
The issues are:
1. Does Owens describe providing recipe links on the GUI, each
recipe link associated with and displayed with a select grocery
item for sale that can be used as an ingredient in a recipe as
recited in claim 1?
2. Does Owens describe mapping recipes with grocery items via
universal product codes as recited in claim 12?
3. Does Owens describe providing recipe links on the GUI, each
recipe link being associated with and displayed with one of the
available products, and in response to the activation of a recipe
link, generating a list of recipes related to the associated
available product and filtering the list of recipes with select
parameters as recited in claim 13?
4. Does Owens describe linking the product with related
information in a second data source via UPC mapping, wherein
the related information is recipes as recited in claim 23?
5. Does Owens describe a program product comprising program
instructions that cause a programmable processor to 1) generate
a list of recipes containing a selected product via universal
product code mapping upon activation of a recipe link that was
displayed on the same GUI screen with the associated product,
wherein each recipe link is displayed next to an associated
product that is used as an ingredient in the recipe as recited in
claim 29?
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

9
6. Does Owens describe a system wherein, in response to the
activation of a recipe link that is associated with and displayed
with the item for sale, the server is adapted to retrieve recipes
via universal product code mapping having the associated item
as an ingredient from the first data base and calculate the
nutritional information per serving for each recipe using the
nutritional information in the second database as recited in
claim 36?
7. Does Owens describe a controller comprising a complier
adapted to recognize at least one of food preparations, cooking
equipment names, preparation processes, and cooking processes
from text files presented to it as recited in claim 45?
8. Does Owens describe generating the list of recipes using
universal product code mapped food data as recited in claim
51?
9. Does the combination of Owens and Fine teach linking
coupons to ingredients in recipes as recited in claims 5 and 7?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Claim construction
1. Claim 1 recites a method comprising the step of “providing recipe
links on the GUI, each recipe link associated with and displayed
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

10
with a select grocery item for sale that can be used as an ingredient
in a recipe.”
2. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “linking coupons to
ingredients in recipes.”
3. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites “linking coupons to
ingredients in recipes.”
4. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites “mapping recipes with
grocery items via universal product codes.”
5. Claim 13 recites a method including the step of “providing recipe
links on the GUI, each recipe link being associated with and
displayed with one of the available products.”
6. Claim 13 also recites “in response to the activation of a recipe link,
generating a list of recipes related to the associated available
product, and filtering the list of recipes with select parameters.”
7. Claim 19 depends from claim 13 and recites “linking coupons to
the available products in the recipe.”
8. Claim 23 recites a method including the step of “once the product
has been determined, linking the product with related information
in a second data source via UPC mapping, wherein the related
information is recipes.”
9. Claim 29 recites a program product comprising program
instruction that cause a programmable processor to generate
a list of recipes containing a selected product via universal
product code mapping upon activation of a recipe link that was
displayed on the same GUI screen with the associated product,
wherein each recipe link is displayed next to an associated
product that is used as an ingredient in the recipe.
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

11
10. Claim 36 recites a system including
wherein, in response to the activation of a recipe link that is
associated with and displayed with the item for sale, the server
is adapted to retrieve recipes via universal product code
mapping having the associated item as an ingredient from the
first data base and calculate the nutritional information per
serving for each recipe using the nutritional information in the
second database.
11. Claim 45 recites a controller comprising “a compiler adapted to
recognize at least one of food preparations, cooking equipment
names, preparation processes and cooking processes from text files
presented to it.”
12. The Specification does not provide a definition for “complier.”
13. The definition of “compiler” is “one that compiles.” (See
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 235 (10th Ed.
1998.)(Entry for “compiler.”)
14. The definition of “compile” is “to compose out of materials from
other documents.” (See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
235 (10th Ed. 1998.)(Entry for “compile.”)
15. The Specification does not provide a definition for “recognize.”
16. The definition of “recognize” is “to perceive to be something or
someone previously known.” (See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary 976 (10th Ed. 1998.)(Entry for “recognize.”)
17. The Specification does not provide a definition for “file.”
18. The definition of “file” is “a complete collection of data (as text or
program) treated by a computer as a unit esp. for purposes of input
and output.” (See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 434
(10th Ed. 1998.)(Entry for “file.”)
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

12
19. Claim 51 depends from claim 13 and recites “generating the list or
[sic.] recipes using universal product code (UPC) mapped food
data.”
Owens
20. Owens describes a method and system for interactively shopping
for groceries including creating a shopping list over the Internet
and downloading the list to a personal digital assistant. Owens
[0002].
21. Owens describes using pantry items listed in the “My Pantry”
screen depicted in Figure 73 to suggest recipes. Owens [0243].
22. Figure 73 of Owens is reproduced below.

Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

13
Figure 73 depicts the “My Pantry” screen which includes a listing
of items with adjacent check boxes and a “Suggest Recipes Based
on Checked” button.
23. Owens describes that by checking the boxes adjacent pantry items
and clicking on the “Suggest Recipes Based on Checked” button, a
screen shown in Figure 74, which depicts a list of recipes that can
be prepared using those items and that by clicking the name of the
recipe links to a recipe details screen shown in Figure 75. Owens
[0244].
24. Figure 75 of Owens is reproduced below.

Figure 75 depicts a screen presenting a recipe including ingredients
and instructions.
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

14
25. Owens describes searching for manufacturer’s coupons and adding
selected grocery items having coupons to the shopping list. Owens
[0223] and Fig. 19.
26. Figure 53 of Owens is reproduces below.

Figure 53 depicts a listing of available manufacturer’s coupons
with adjacent check boxes and an “Add Checked to Today’s
Shopping List” button.
27. Owens describes grocery item comparison information including
universal product codes (UPC). Owens [0039] and [0052].
28. Owens describes including UPC codes on a purchase list and in a
shopping cart. Owens [0062] and [0066].
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

15
29. Owens also describes a system for collecting recipes in a user’s
account by clicking “Add to My Recipes,” Owens [0245].
30. Owens in Figure 23 describes that a user can filter a list of recipes
to search for recipes by a search criteria and that the ingredients
from the recipe can then be added to a shopping list or the recipe
can then be added to a menu planner.
31. Owens in Figures 78-82 depict screens for inputting information
for creating recipes which can be added to the recipes save in a
user account. Owens [0249]-[0251].
32. Owens in Figures 81 and 82 shows that classifications are created
for each recipe including category and subcategories, for example
Main Dish > Pasta > Bake, to facilitate easy retrieval. Owens
[0251].
33. Fine is directed to an interactive shopping system.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
[W]e look to the specification to see if it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a
broad interpretation. As this court has discussed,
this methodology produces claims with only
justifiable breadth. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

16
1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, as applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee. Am. Acad.,
367 F.3d at 1364.
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not
read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in Graham further
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

17
noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought
to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 17-18.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17-24, and 27-51 under § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Owens.
Method Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-11
We find that claim 1 does not require that each recipe link be
associated and displayed with one and only one selected grocery item, as the
Appellants seem to argue (App. Br. 6-7). “Many of appellant’s arguments
fail from the outset because, . . . they are not based on limitations appearing
in the claims . . . .” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Claim 1
recites “providing recipe links on the GUI, each recipe link associated with
and displayed with a select grocery item for sale that can be use as an
ingredient in a recipe.” FF 1. Claim 1 does require that the recipe link is
associated and displayed with a selected grocery item but is silent as to
whether or not the recipe link can be associated with additional grocery
items. Further, we note that claim 1 recites the open transitional term
“comprising.” FF 1. The transitional term "comprising" opens the claim to
additional elements. See Genentech Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501
(Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d
1261, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we find that claim 1 also
encompasses a recipe link that is associated and displayed with more than
one selected grocery item.
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

18
We find that the “Suggest Recipes Based on Checked” link of the
“My Pantry” screen depicted in Figure 73 meets this limitation. The link is
provided on the GUI and associated with and displayed with multiple
checked grocery items that can be used as an ingredient in a recipe. FF 21-
23.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-4, 6, and 8-11 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Owens.
Method Claim 12
We find that while Owens describes using universal product codes
(UPC) as grocery item comparison information (FF 27) and providing UPCs
in shopping cart and purchase lists (FF 28), Owens does not describe
expressly or inherently the step of mapping recipes with grocery items via
the universal product codes as recited in claim 12. It is well settled that in
order for the examiner to establish a prima facie case of anticipation, each
and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the
claim, must be found in a single prior art reference, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d
675, 677-78 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Owens is silent as to how the recipe list depicted in Figure 74 is created
after the “Suggest Recipes Based on Checked” link is chosen from the
screen depicted in Figure 75. However, Owens does describe classifying the
recipes by category and subcategory for easy retrieval (FF 32), but the
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

19
category and subcategories depicted in Figures 81 and 82 do not include
UPCs.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Owens.
Method Claims 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-22
We find that while Owens does describe generating a list of recipes
related to the associated available product (FF 23), as discussed above for
claim 1, and filtering a list of recipes (FF 30), the filtering in Owens occurs
on the entire list of recipes and not the generated list of recipes related to the
associated product. Claim 13 recites “providing recipe links on the GUI,
each recipe link being associated with and displayed with one of the
available products” and that “in response to the activation of a recipe link,
generating a list of recipes related to the associated available product, and
filtering the list of recipes with select parameters.” FF 5-6.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13-15, 17, 18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Owens.
Method Claim 19
This rejection is directed to claim 19 dependent on claim 13, whose
rejection we have reversed above. For the same reason, we will not sustain
the rejections of claim 19 over the cited prior art. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.").
Method Claims 23-24, and 27-28
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

20
We find that like claim 12, claim 23 recites linking a product to a
recipe via UPC mapping. FF 8. For the same reasons as provided for claim
12, we find that Owens does not describe linking the product with related
information in a second data source via UPC mapping, wherein the related
information is recipes. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23, and claims 24 and 27-28
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Owens.
Article Claims 29-35
We find that like claim 12, claim 29 recites retrieving a recipe with a
UPC mapping. FF 9. For the same reasons as provided for claim 12, we
find that Owens does not describe a program product comprising program
instruction that cause a programmable processor to generate a list of recipes
containing a selected product via universal product code mapping.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 29, and claims 3-35 dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Owens.
Apparatus Claims 36-44
We find that like claim 12, claim 36 recites retrieving a recipe with a
UPC mapping. FF 10. For the same reasons as provided for claim 12, we
find that Owens does not describe a system having a server adapted to
retrieve recipes via universal product codes mapping. Accordingly, we find
that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
36, and claims 37-44 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Owens.
Article Claims 45-50
Claim 45
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

21
We find that Owens does describe “a complier adapted to recognize at
least one of food preparations, cooking equipment names, preparation
processes and cooking processes from text files presented to it” as recited by
claim 45 (FF 11). The ordinary and customary meaning of complier is one
that composes out of material from other documents. FF 12-14. The
ordinary and customary meaning of recognize is to perceive to be something
or someone previously known. FF 15-16. The ordinary and customary
meaning of file is a complete collection of data (as text or program) treated
by a computer as a unit. FF 17-18. We construe claim 25 to require a
compiler that perceives food preparations, cooking equipment names,
preparation processes and cooking process from a collection of text.
In the system of Owens, a user account includes a “Add to My
Recipes” section where a user’s collection of recipes is stored. FF 29. We
read this part of the system as the claimed complier. New recipes can be
added to the collection through the “Create Recipes” link, which allows data
to be inputted through the screens depicted in Figures 78-82. FF 31. This
text data includes a recipe classification that is a food preparation; for
example “bake” as shown in Figure 82. FF 32. The compiler perceives this
data as a type of subcategory as shown in Figure 81. FF 32.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 45, and claims 46-50 dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Owens.
Method Claim 51
We find that like claim 12, claim 51 recites retrieving a recipe with a
UPC mapping. FF 19. For the same reasons as provided for claim 12, we
find that Owens does not describe a method including generating the list of
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

22
recipes using universal product code mapped food data. Accordingly, we
find that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Owens.

The rejection of claims 5, 7, and 16 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Owens and Fine.
Claim 5
First, we note that claim 5 encompasses linking coupons to items that
are ingredients in any recipes, not just the ones displayed when activating a
recipe link recited in claim 1, which claim 5 depends upon. Claim 5 merely
recites “linking coupons to ingredients in recipes.” FF 2. Claim 5 does not
restrict “recipes” to be the displayed recipes.
We find that Owens discloses retrieving a display of manufacturer’s
coupons. FF 25-26. The display includes a link that allows the user to add
the coupon’s item to their shopping list. FF 25. The coupon is linked to the
item. Id. For example, Owens in Figures 53-54 depicts a coupon for
cheddar cheese. FF 26. Next to each coupon is a box, which can be
checked, and a link titled “Add Checked to Today’s Shopping List.” Id.
Cheddar cheese is an ingredient in many recipes, such as macaroni and
cheese.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Owens and Fine.
Claim 7
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 7 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 5. App. Br. 17-18.
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

23
Further, we note that claim 7 include the same limitation at issue in claim 5.
FF 3. Accordingly, because we found the argument unpersuasive as to that
rejection, we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of
claim 7. We find that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Owens
and Fine.
Claim 16
This rejection is directed to claim 16 dependent on claim 13, whose
rejection we have reversed above. For the same reason, we will not sustain
the rejections of claim 16 over the cited prior art. Cf. Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266 ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from
which they depend are nonobvious.").

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Owens and claims 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Owens and Fine.
We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 12-15, 17-24, 27-44, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Owens and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Owens and Fine.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11, and 45-50 is
affirmed and to reject claims 12-24, 27-44, and 51 is reversed.
Appeal 2009-001356
Application 10/943,802

24
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh

FOGG & POWERS, LLC
5810 W 78TH STREET
SUITE 100
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439