Ex Parte Goodwin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 20, 201311032350 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN C. GOODWIN, III and TERRY L. ZIMMERMAN ___________ Appeal 2011-000531 Application 11/032,350 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000531 Application 11/032,350 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE John C. Goodwin, III, et al., (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 7-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is a system for displaying information by an electronic price label. Spec. 2:5-7. Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 7. A system for displaying information for an item besides price by an electronic price label comprising: a record for the item which contains thresholds which divide the information into a number of ranges including a first range of information and a second range of information; a computer for scheduling messages for transmission to the electronic price label, wherein the computer obtains first information associated with the first range and displayed by the electronic price label, obtains second information which is more recent than the first information, determines 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Apr. 8, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 7, 2010). Appeal 2011-000531 Application 11/032,350 3 whether the first information equals the second information, and if the first information does not equal the second information, obtains the second range, determines whether the first information is within the second range, sends a message to the electronic price label containing the second information and a command to display the second information instead of the first information if the first information is outside the second range, and otherwise allows the electronic price label to continue displaying the first information even though the first information is not so accurate as the second information if the first information is within the second range. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Goodwin, III US 6,397,199 B1 May 28, 2002 The following rejection2 is before us for review: 1. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Goodwin, III. ISSUE The issue is whether Goodwin, III describes a computer that: 1) “determines whether the first information equals the second information” and 2) “sends a message to the electronic price label containing the second 2 The Examiner withdrew the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 7-8. Ans. 7. Appeal 2011-000531 Application 11/032,350 4 information and a command to display the second information instead of the first information if the first information is outside the second range.” 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). 1. Goodwin, III describes a system which determines whether to display a new price and/or other terms, such as rental return date (col. 3, ll. 43-45,) on an electronic price label by comparing current inventory levels to threshold inventory levels. See Abstr., Fig. 3, col. 1, l. 47 – col. 2, l. 9 and col. 4, ll. 29-60. 2. Goodwin, III does not describe the electronic price label displaying inventory levels. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument (Br. 6-8) that the Examiner erred in finding claims 7 and 8 anticipated by Goodwin, III. Claim 7 recites a system that includes a computer that has a structure that: 1) “determines whether the first information equals the second information” and 2) “sends a message to the electronic price label containing the second information and a command to display the second information instead of the first information if the first information is outside the second range.” The second information is the same information that is used by the computer in making the determination above and is sent by the computer to the electronic Appeal 2011-000531 Application 11/032,350 5 price label. We agree with the Appellants (see Br. 7) that Goodwin, III does not describe this. While Goodwin, III describes a system that determines whether inventory level information is equal, Goodwin, III does not describe sending this same inventory level information to the electronic price label. See FF 1-2. Instead, Goodwin, III describes sending different information (i.e., price or other terms) to the electronic price label if the inventory level information is not equal. Id. Independent claim 8 recites a similar limitation. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Goodwin, III is reversed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7-8 is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation