Ex Parte Sanville et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2009

10369821 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KATHERINE M. SANVILLE and RICHARD MEHUS
____________

Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: January 30, 2009
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and STEFAN
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Katherine M. Sanville and Richard Mehus (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-64. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

The Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system and method for
monitoring dispensing operations of chemical dispense systems.
Specification 1:3-4. Claim 32, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
32. A computer program product readable by a
computing system and encoding a computer
program for executing a computer process for
monitoring usage of one or more chemical
products dispensed by a chemical dispense system,
wherein a plurality of enterprises are responsible
for managing cleaning tasks performed using the
one or more chemical products, the cleaning tasks
being performed by service representatives
employed by the plurality of enterprises, the
computer process comprising:
associating an enterprise identifier (ID) to
each of the plurality of enterprises such that each
service representative employed by a single
enterprise is associated with the same enterprise
ID;
receiving a first request for the chemical
dispense system to dispense a chemical product,
wherein the first request comprises a first
enterprise ID associated with a first enterprise
employed to perform a first cleaning task;
receiving a second request for the chemical
dispense system to dispense a chemical product,
wherein the second request comprises a second
enterprise ID associated with a second enterprise
employed to perform a second cleaning task, and
linking the first enterprise ID to a name of
the chemical product requested by the first request
and a dispensed volume of the chemical product
requested by the first request; and linking the
2
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

second enterprise ID to a name of the chemical
product requested by the second request and a
dispensed volume of the chemical product
requested by the second request.

The Rejection
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-64
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Crisp (US 6,799,085 B1,
issued September 28, 2004).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
In contesting the rejections of claims 1-64 as being anticipated by
Crisp, Appellants argue that several features required in the claims are not
taught by Crisp. Thus, at issue in this appeal is whether Appellants
demonstrate the Examiner erred in finding that Crisp anticipates claims 1-64
because Crisp lacks:
(1) a plurality of enterprises and a computer system that takes requests
from employees of at least two different enterprises (Appeal Br. 8);
(2) a computer program that limits or authorizes a user’s dispensing to
predetermined ones of the chemical products that they are
authorized to dispense (Appeal Br. 9);
(3) a computer program that limits dispensing by linking user IDs to
predetermined products, and displaying the predetermined
3
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

products, thus effectively limiting a user’s choice to those
predetermined products that are displayed (Appeal Br. 10);
(4) a computer program that limits a user to a specified volume of one
or more predetermined products (Appeal Br. 11); and
(5) a management entity setting specified volumes of each of the one
or more predetermined chemical products (Appeal Br. 12).

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
FF1 Appellants’ Specification defines “enterprise” as including “at
least one management entity that manages the service
representatives employed by the enterprise.” Specification 1:12-
13.
FF2 Appellants’ Specification defines “employed by” as encompassing
any form of association between a service representative and an
enterprise, wherein the service representative performs some task
for or on behalf of the enterprise. Specification 19:5-7.
FF3 Crisp describes an apparatus supply distribution and dispensing
system and method for distributing appliance supplies to a home or
business. Crisp, Abstract; Crisp, col. 20, ll. 2-3. Accordingly, the
entity served by Crisp’s system and method is a business or a
household.
FF4 Each appliance has an appliance or dispensing computer 24. Crisp,
col. 6, ll. 65-67.
FF5 Crisp’s system tracks, automatically orders, and delivers or
distributes products and supplies used or dispensed by the
appliances to the homes of the users. Crisp, col. 2, ll. 9-11.
4
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

Crisp’s system includes a plurality of dispensing apparatuses in the
appliances of multiple users and a plurality of suppliers preferably,
but not necessarily, located in the geographic vicinity of the users.
Crisp, col. 2, ll. 33-36. Accordingly, Crisp’s system monitors and
orders and distributes products and supplies for apparatuses in a
plurality of homes and/or businesses.
FF6 Any communications between the dispensing computer of an
appliance and the order processing system of Crisp, including
those initiated by a user, includes a user identification code, a
dispensing apparatus unit identification code 302, an appliance
supply identification (product identification) 304, and the
appliance supply amount 306. Crisp, col. 17, ll. 8-14 and 56-65;
Crisp, col. 19, ll. 49-53; Crisp, col. 20, ll. 1-14; and Crisp, Figure
9.
FF7 Crisp’s system can be adapted to provide each individual in a
household (or business) with a separate user code, which the user
would enter each time the user used a supply, for example, when
obtaining a drink, washing clothes, etc., and which would enable
the system to track individual use on consumption. Crisp, col. 11,
ll. 36-42.
FF8 The user interface panel of the appliance or dispensing computer
24 displays one or more products or selections. Crisp, col. 8, ll.
60-62. In accordance with one embodiment of Crisp’s invention,
only one selection is made available to the user by the user
interface panel. Crisp, col. 9, ll. 3-5. The user will be limited to
requesting that single displayed selection.
5
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

FF9 Crisp’s system tracks the amount of appliance supply that is
ordered from the order processing system and limits the amount of
supply that may be installed into the dispenser, and thus used by
the user, by shutting down the dispensing apparatus or displaying
an error message if the amount of supply installed exceeds the
amount ordered. Crisp, col. 18, ll. 59-66.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir.
1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject
application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in
the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully
met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772
(Fed. Cir. 1983).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-13, 18-28, 32-44, and 49-58
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 18, 32, and 49 together as a
group. Appellants present no separate arguments for patentability with
respect to dependent claims 2-13, 19-28, 33-44, and 50-58 apart from the
6
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

independent claims from which they depend. Thus, in accordance with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2008), we select claim 32 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal of the rejection as to these claims, with claims 1-
13, 18-28, 33-44, and 49-58 standing or falling with claim 32.
Appellants’ only argument in contesting the rejection of claim 32 is
that Crisp does not teach a plurality of enterprises and a computer system for
taking requests from employees of two different enterprises. This argument
is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. First, claim 32 does
not in fact require a plurality of enterprises. Claim 32 is directed to a
computer-readable computer program product encoding a computer program
for (capable of) executing a computer process, which process includes
associating an enterprise identifier (ID) to each of a plurality of enterprises,
receiving first and second requests comprising a first enterprise ID and a
second enterprise ID, respectively, and linking each of the first and second
enterprise IDs to a name and dispensed volume of product. As far as the
computer program is concerned, the enterprise IDs are simply codes
recognized by the computer programs, regardless of what type of entity, if
any, with which they are associated or assigned. Nevertheless, in any event,
each home or business served by Crisp’s system is an “enterprise” in that it
is a management entity that manages the service representatives associated
with that entity that perform some task on behalf of the entity. FF1, FF2,
and FF3. Moreover, Crisp’s system monitors and orders and distributes
products and supplies for apparatuses in a plurality of homes and/or
businesses. FF5. Therefore, we find that Crisp’s system does receive
requests from and distribute product to a plurality of enterprises. Moreover,
every communication between an appliance dispensing computer and
7
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

Crisp’s order processing system includes a dispensing apparatus unit
identification code 302, product identification, and product volume
dispensed or supplied. FF6. The dispensing apparatus unit identification
code 302 is associated with the home or business in which it is located.
Consequently, the dispensing apparatus unit identification code 302 is an
enterprise ID, as called for in claim 32.
In light of the above, Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 32. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 32
and claims 1-13, 18-28, 33-44, and 49-58, which stand or fall with claim 32.
Claims 14, 29, 45, and 59
Appellants argue claims 14, 29, 45, and 59 together as a group. We
select claim 45 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the
rejection as to these claims, with claims 14, 29, and 59 standing or falling
with claim 45.
In addition to the argument directed to claim 32, which is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed above, in contesting the rejection of
claim 45, Appellants additionally argue that Crisp “does not limit or
authorize a user’s dispensing to predetermined ones of the chemical products
that they are authorized to dispense as does the presently claimed invention.”
Appeal Br. 9. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim
45 and thus does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection. It is
well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 45 merely requires a linking of one or more chemical products
dispensed to the first user ID such that the user of the user ID is authorized
8
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

to dispense the product. Claim 45 does not require that the system limit or
authorize a user’s dispensing to predetermined chemical products.
Crisp teaches providing a separate user code for each individual in a
household (or business) that is entered each time the user uses a supply.
FF7. Moreover, the user identification code is linked in a communication to
the order processing system with the dispensing apparatus unit identification
code 302, the appliance supply identification (product identification) 304,
and the appliance supply amount 306. FF6. Crisp’s system thus satisfies the
requirements of claim 45.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that claim 45 were construed
as requiring that the system use the user ID to limit the products that the user
is authorized to dispense, Crisp satisfies such a requirement. Specifically,
Crisp describes an embodiment in which only one selection is made
available to the user by the user interface panel. The user will be limited to
requesting that single displayed selection. FF8.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 45. We sustain the rejection of claim 45 and
claims 14, 29, and 59, which stand or fall with claim 45.
Claims 15, 30, 46, 60, 61, 63, and 64
Appellants argue claims 15, 30, 46, 60, and 63 together as a group.
We select claim 46 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the
rejection with respect to these claims, with claims 15, 30, 60, and 63
standing or falling with claim 46. Appellants do not present any separate
arguments for the patentability of claims 61 and 64 apart from claims 60 and
63 from which they depend. Accordingly, claims 61 and 64 stand or fall
with claims 60 and 63, and thus with claim 46.
9
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

In contesting the rejection of claim 46, Appellants argue that since
Crisp does not limit dispensing by linking user IDs to predetermined
chemical products, Crisp does not teach displaying the predetermined
products to effectively limit a user’s choice to the products displayed on the
selection page. Appeal Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive. As
discussed above with regard to claim 45, Crisp teaches linking the user
identification code in a communication to the order processing system with
the dispensing apparatus unit identification code 302, the appliance supply
identification (product identification) 304, and the appliance supply amount
306. FF6. Crisp further describes an embodiment in which only one
selection is made available to the user by the user interface panel. The user
will be limited to requesting that single displayed selection. FF8.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 46. We sustain the rejection of claim 46 and
claims 15, 30, 60, 61, 63, and 64, which stand or fall with claim 46.
Claims 16, 31, 47, and 62
Appellants argue these claims together as a group. Thus, we select
claim 47 as the representative claim, with claims 16, 31, and 62 standing or
falling with claim 47.
Appellants argue that Crisp does not anticipate the subject matter of
claim 47 because Crisp says nothing about limiting a user to a specified
volume of one or more predetermined chemical products. Appeal Br. 11.
This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 47, which does
not explicitly limit a user to a specified volume of one or more
predetermined chemical products. Rather, claim 47 requires that linking the
first enterprise ID to a name and a dispensed volume of chemical product
10
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

comprise linking each of the one or more predetermined products to a
specified volume that the first service representative (user) is authorized to
use. As noted above, Crisp teaches that the user identification code is linked
in a communication to the order processing system with the dispensing
apparatus unit identification code 302, the appliance supply identification
(product identification) 304, and the appliance supply amount 306. FF6.
Stated differently, the user identification code, the dispensing apparatus unit
identification code 302, the product identification 304, and a specified
volume (appliance supply amount 306) are all linked together. Claim 47
requires no more than this. In particular, claim 47 does not require any
means for pre-assigning a volume value to which the user is limited to
request, select, or use.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that claim 47 were interpreted as
requiring that the system limit a user to a specified volume of one or more
predetermined chemical products, Crisp would satisfy such a requirement.
Specifically, Crisp’s system tracks the amount of appliance supply that is
ordered from the order processing system and limits the amount of supply
that may be installed into the dispenser, and thus the amount that is
authorized to be used by the user, by shutting down the dispensing apparatus
or displaying an error message if the amount of supply installed exceeds the
amount ordered. FF9.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ argument does not demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47. We sustain the rejection of
claim 47 and claims 16, 31, and 62, which stand or fall with claim 47.
11
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

Claims 17 and 48
Appellants argue claims 17 and 48 together as a group. We select
claim 48 as the representative claim, with claim 17 standing or falling with
claim 48.
Appellants argue that Crisp does not anticipate the subject matter of
claim 48 because Crisp does not mention that anyone, much less a
management entity, sets specified volumes of each of the one or more
predetermined chemical products. Appeal Br. 12. This argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 48. Claim 48 is directed to a
computer-readable computer program product encoding a computer program
for (capable of) executing a computer process comprising, inter alia, linking
to the one or more predetermined chemical products a specified volume that
is set by a management entity responsible for managing usage trends of
chemical products by the first service representative. Claim 48 does not
specify how a management entity must set such a specified volume or even
require an interface for receiving an input of such a volume. A household or
business entity can, in effect, set such a specified value in Crisp’s system by
ordering a specified amount of the product or supply. As discussed above
with respect to claim 47, Crisp’s system tracks the amount of appliance
supply that is ordered from the order processing system and limits the
amount of supply that may be installed into the dispenser, and thus the
amount that is authorized to be used by the user, by shutting down the
dispensing apparatus or displaying an error message if the amount of supply
installed exceeds the amount ordered. FF9.
12
Appeal 2008-5681
Application 10/369,821

For the above reasons, Appellants’ argument fails to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 48. We sustain the rejection of claim 48
and claim 17, which stands or falls with claim 48.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants fail to demonstrate the Examiner erred in finding that
Crisp anticipates claims 1-64.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED

JRG

SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
1625 RADIO DRIVE
SUITE 300
WOODBURY, MN 55125

13