Ex Parte Willis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2018

13971946 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/971,946 08/21/2013
122869 7590 04/09/2018
Pearne and Gordon, LLP
1801East9th Street, Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Willis
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
WGP-50662 6612
EXAMINER
SCHMID, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY WILLIS and KURT FROEHLICH
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4-10, and 13-17, which are all of
the pending claims. Final Office Action (November 16, 2015) (hereinafter
"Final Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The claimed subject matter relates to dispensing units associated with
refrigeration appliances. The dispensing unit uses a controller to control
1 Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided
for under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 3 (May 13, 2016) (hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
dispensing of water and/or ice based on identification of a receiving vessel
and stored usage parameters associated with the identified receiving vessel.
We agree with the Examiner that the controller of Anselmino 's
dispensing system performs the functions recited in claim 1. We find
insufficient evidence, however, to support the Examiner's findings that
Anselmino's controller performs the functions recited in claims 4-8, 10, and
13-17. Accordingly, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A refrigeration apparatus, comprising:
a fresh food compartment;
a freezer compartment;
a dispenser configured to dispense at least one of water
and ice into a receiver vessel, wherein the dispenser comprises:
a dispense command input configured to receive a
dispense command from a user; and
a code reader configured to interpret an
identification code associated with the receiver vessel
when the receiver vessel is located proximate the
dispenser;
at least one controller operatively connected to the
dispense command input to thereby receive the dispense
command, and operatively connected to the code reader to
thereby receive a vessel identification from the code reader based
on the interpreted identification code, wherein the at least one
controller controls a dispensing of the at least one of water and
ice;
a memory operatively connected to the controller and
configured to store the vessel identification in association with a
usage parameter for the receiver vessel;
2
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
wherein the at least one controller determines, by inquiring
whether the vessel identification is already stored in the memory,
whether the at least one of water and ice has been previously
dispensed into the receiver vessel, and when the at least one
controller has determined that the at least one of water and ice
has not been previously dispensed into the receiver vessel, the at
least one controller causes the usage parameter to be stored in the
memory, in association with the vessel identification, based on a
first dispense command received from the user that dispenses the
at least one of water and ice into the receiver vessel,
wherein the at least one controller is configured to
automatically control the dispensing in accordance with the
stored usage parameter for the receiver vessel upon determining
that the at least one of water and ice has been previously
dispensed into the receiver vessel,
wherein the dispense command input comprises a user
interface for overriding the stored usage parameter and the
automatic control by the at least one controller, and
wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause a
new usage parameter to be stored in the memory, in association
with the vessel identification, based on the overriding.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 4-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Anselmino et al. (US 2012/0104023 Al, published
May 3, 2012).
2. Claims 10 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anselmino and Haskayne (US 7,373,784 B2,
issued May 20, 2008).
3
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
ISSUES
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
finding Anselmino discloses: (1) a controller that determines whether a
previous dispensing has occurred for a particular vessel, and (2) a user
interface for overriding an automatic control in accordance with stored usage
parameters. Appeal Br. 10-11. With respect to claims 4 and 10, Appellant
argues that Anselmino does not disclose how dispensed volume is controlled
during dispensing. Appeal Br. 12. With respect to claim 8, Appellant
argues that Anselmino does not disclose prompting the user to confirm that
dispensing is to be automatically controlled in accordance with stored usage
parameters. Appeal Br. 14. Thus, Appellant contests the Examiner's
findings that Anselmino discloses limitations of claims 1, 4, 8, and 10.
These findings form the basis for the anticipation and unpatentability
rejections on appeal. We examine each contested finding below to
determine whether each finding is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Anticipation by Anselmino
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites that the controller "determines, by inquiring whether
the vessel identification is already stored in the memory, whether the at least
one of water and ice has been previously dispensed into the receiver vessel."
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). Appellant argues that Anselmino does
not disclose this feature. Id. at 10. The Examiner explains that Anselmino
could not automatically dispense without determining whether dispensing
4
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
into a particular vessel has occurred previously. Ans. 13. As explained
below, we agree with the Examiner's reading of Anselmino.
Anselmino discloses allowing a user to "setup" a configuration to
associate a particular container with user preferences through user
preference queries presented on the user display, to which the user responds
using user controls (buttons, etc.). Anselmino i-f 29. Anselmino also
discloses using beverage usage patterns (daily, weekly, monthly) recorded
over a period of time to assist in setting up the user preferences. Id.
Anselmino discloses reading an RFID tag to identify a particular vessel and
associating the identified container to the specific user and the user's
beverage preferences. Id. i-fi-124, 37.
For automatic dispensing to a user, Anselmino describes that the user
places their beverage container into the beverage dispenser and receives
their preferred beverage without the need to make any decisions. Id. i-f 32.
We do not understand Anselmino' s disclosure of automatic dispensing to be
limited to using an image sensor to acquire the user's image for
identification of the user. See Reply Br. 2 (Appellant arguing that
Example 3 disclosed in paragraph 32 is limited to identifying a user based on
the user's image). Although Example 3 of Anselmino discloses that to
identify a user, the image sensor "may acquire an image of the user,"
Anselmino also discloses other examples of the same system, in which the
system recognizes a user based on the user's container. Id. i-fi-132, 37.
In particular, Anselmino describes that the system uses the RFID
reader/detector 25 to acquire identifying information from an RFID tag
affixed to the container. Id. i-f 37. The system "compare[s] the identifying
information located in the RFID tag of the container with identifying
5
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
information within a database to determine a match and to then access data
associated within the identifying information." Id. The system
automatically dispenses a beverage to the user based on the identified
container and the user's beverage preferences. Id. Thus, if Anselmino's
system reads an RFID tag on a container and does not find any user
preferences or usage patterns in its memory associated with that
container/user, then the controller has determined that previous dispensing
for that vessel has not occurred. For these reasons, we do not find error in
the Examiner's finding that Anselmino discloses a controller that determines
by inquiring whether the vessel identification is already stored in the
memory, whether at least one of water and ice has been previously dispensed
into the receiver vessel.
Claim 1 also recites that "the dispense command input comprises a
user interface for overriding the stored usage parameter and the automatic
control by the at least one controller." Appellant's Specification describes
different means by which the system enables a user to override the automatic
dispensing operation. Spec. i-f 33. In one embodiment, the dispensing
apparatus is configured to give the user a period, prior to the commencement
of automatic dispensing, for the user to interrupt and input different usage
parameters. Id. In another embodiment, the dispensing apparatus is
configured to require the user to confirm via the user interface the stored
usage parameters for the vessel before dispensing will begin. Id. The user
can either confirm the usage parameters via the user interface or input
different usage parameters in the user interface to override the stored usage
parameters. Id. Based on this disclosure in Appellant's Specification, we
interpret "overriding the stored usage parameter and the automatic control"
6
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
to refer to the act of allowing the user to interrupt the automatic control and
instruct the controller to dispense in a manner other than according to the
stored usage parameters.
The Examiner found that Anselmino's disclosure of user controls and
querying the user regarding limiting caloric intake meets this limitation.
Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that limiting caloric intake is merely an
additional parameter within the stored usage parameter and does not amount
to overriding an existing automatic control. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant
asserts that nothing in Anselmino indicates settings that would have
previously limited the user's consumption, i.e., caloric intake, are being
changed or overridden. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner explains that Anselmino describes being able to
configure the user controls on the user interface to select preferred
dispensing operations, which would allow a user to change settings (override
controls) that would have previously limited their consumption, i.e., caloric
intake based on a stored usage pattern. Ans. 14. We agree with the
Examiner's understanding of the operation of Anselmino.
Anselmino' s system is not limited to allowing a user to set up user
preferences only once. Rather, Anselmino' s system allows a user to set up
user preferences in an initial instance, and then set up different user
preferences at a later instance. Anselmino iii! 23, 29. For example,
Anselmino describes that "the user may initiate limiting caloric intake via
the user interface 36." Anselmino ii 40. A subsequent setup to limit caloric
intake overrides the initial setup configuration settings, for example, a
configuration without limits on caloric intake. For these reasons, we do not
find error in the Examiner's finding that Anselmino discloses a user
7
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
interface for overriding the stored usage parameter and the automatic control
by the at least one controller.
Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. Appellant does not present any additional arguments in support of
the patentability of claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Thus, claim 9 falls
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites that "the usage
parameter includes a volume of water that is manually dispensed into the
receiver vessel" and a controller "controls the dispenser to automatically
dispense the volume of water included in the usage parameter." Appeal
Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner determined that Anselmino must
inherently store the manually dispensed volume as a usage parameter for
subsequent automated filling. Final Act. 6 (citing Anselmino i-f 29); Ans. 16
("if the total volume was not controlled, a system that 'automatically
dispenses a beverage' would not function") (quoting Anselmino i-fi-133, 44).
Appellant acknowledges that Anselmino might keep track of dispensed
volume (to report on total volume consumed or limits on caloric intake), but
argues that Anselmino does not teach recording a manually dispensed
volume as a usage parameter based on a first dispense command from a user
and using that volume for subsequent automatic dispensing. Appeal Br. 12;
see also Reply Br. 4 ("nothing in Anselmino indicates how such volume
should be established").
Appellant is correct that Anselmino does not explicitly disclose how
the system determines the volume to be dispensed during automated
dispensing. We disagree with the Examiner's finding that Anselmino
8
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
necessarily uses a recorded manually dispensed volume as a user preference
for use in subsequent automated filling operations. Anselmino discloses
recording patterns of usage, such as the type of beverage dispensed to the
user at a particular time of day (e.g., coffee or orange juice in the morning),
but it does not explicitly disclose that this pattern of usage includes a
dispensed beverage volume. Anselmino i-fi-129, 32. Instead, the system
might prompt the user to select a preferred dispensed volume each time.
Appeal Br. 12-13 ("Automatically dispensing a type ofbeverage as in
Anselmino does not require that volume be automatically controlled.").
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 and
claims 5-7, which depend from claim 4, as anticipated by Anselmino.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the user interface
prompts the user to confirm that the dispensing is to be automatically
controlled in accordance with the stored usage parameter for the receiver
vessel." Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner found that
Anselmino 's disclosure of user controls that enable a user to select a
preferred dispensing operation or selected other settings meets this
limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Anselmino i123). Appellant argues that
Anselmino does not disclose the claimed feature. Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner provides three separate responses to Appellant's
argument. First, the Examiner responds that the user controls would
inherently encompass a confirmation function, as claimed. Ans. 1 7. The
Examiner appears to rely solely on the presence of user controls 28 for this
inherency finding. Ans. 16-17 (citing Anselmino i123). Paragraph 23 of
Anselmino discloses that user controls, such as buttons, touch screen display
9
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
inputs, etc., enable a user to "select a preferred dispensing operation or
selected other settings." This paragraph does not describe prompting a user
to confirm automatic dispensing. Paragraph 29 of Anselmino describes a
user using the user controls to set up a configuration to associate the user
with user preferences. When paragraph 23 is read in combination with
paragraph 29, we understand the reference to "select a preferred dispensing
operation or selected other settings" to refer to setup of a configuration and
not to confirmation of automated dispensing. As such, the Examiner has not
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Anselmino necessarily
prompts a user to confirm the automated dispensing.
Second, the Examiner states that the language in claim 8 regarding
prompting a user for confirmation is "purely functional language, as it does
not further define the structure of a refrigeration apparatus, merely the
function of the controller within the apparatus." Ans. 17. We disagree with
the Examiner's interpretation of this claim language. To establish
anticipation, Anselmino's controller must be programmed to perform the
prompting/confirmation function; it is not sufficient that the controller is
simply capable of being programmed to perform the recited function. See
Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (affirming district court holding that "memory for storing" limitation
"requires that the memory is actually programmed or configured to store the
data collection application"). We have insufficient evidence from the
Examiner to find that Anselmino' s controller can perform the
prompting/confirmation function without further programming. 2
2 The Examiner cites Intel Corp. v. US. International Trade Commission,
946 F .2d 821, 83 2 (Fed. Cir. 1991) in support of this claim interpretation.
10
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
Third, the Examiner responds that it would at least be obvious to use a
prompting/confirmation function in Anselmino's system. Ans. 17; see also
id. at 18 (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
The Examiner's rejection of claim 8, however, is based on anticipation by
Anselmino. The Examiner cannot rely on an alleged obvious modification
to Anselmino's system to support a rejection based on anticipation.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 8 as anticipated by Anselmino.
Second Ground of Rejection: Unpatentability over Anselmino and Haskayne
Independent claim 10 recites that a usage parameter is stored in the
memory, in association with the vessel identification, based on a first
volume of water manually dispensed into the receiver vessel and a second
controller is "configured to automatically control the operations of the valve
to dispense the volume of water included in the usage parameter." Appeal
Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Anselmino, as modified
by Haskayne to include a second controller, discloses this limitation. Final
Act. 8. The Examiner's finding that Anselmino discloses storing the
manually dispensed volume as a usage parameter for subsequent automated
filling is the same finding that we determined lacked adequate evidentiary
support in the rejection of dependent claim 4. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10 and dependent claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The claim language at issue is distinguishable from the claim language in
Intel, because the language of the claims on appeal does not recite that the
controller is merely "programmable" to perform the prompting/confirmation
function.
11
Appeal2017-005285
Application 13/971,946
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 9 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4-8, 10, and 13-17 is
reversed.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12