Ex Parte HerringtonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201612963699 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/963,699 12/09/2010 107681 7590 08/02/2016 NCR Corporation 3097 Satelite Boulevard Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department Duluth, GA 30096 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Russell HERRINGTON 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. 10-165 3408 EXAMINER ZUKANOVICH, BRANDY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): PTOMail.Law@ncr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RUSSELL HERRINGTON Appeal2014-005221 Application 12/963,699 1 Technology Center 3600 Before BRADLEY B. BAY AT, MATHEWS. MEYERS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, 18-20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is NCR Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-005221 Application 12/963,699 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A method comprising: prior to presenting any user identification by a user, displaying a choice to the user by a media content dispensing self-service kiosk to select from a ranked list of media content representing a subset of all the media content available from the kiosk, the ranked list being based upon preferences previously provided by the user; receiving a user selection of the choice to select from a ranked list by the kiosk; determining an identity of the user following the user selection of the choice by the kiosk; determining the ranked list associated with the user by the kiosk; searching available inventory of the kiosk to find highest ranked media content in the available inventory by the kiosk; displaying, to the user, the highest ranked media content available by the kiosk; receiving a request by the user of the highest ranked media content available by the kiosk; and delivering the highest ranked media content available to the user by the kiosk. CITED REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references: Siegel et al. (hereinafter "Siegel") Curtis Rouse et al. (hereinafter "Rouse") US 2002/0002483 Al Jan. 3, 2002 US 2011/0015985 Al Jan. 20, 2011 US 2011/0265126 Al Oct. 27, 2011 2 Appeal2014-005221 Application 12/963,699 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Siegel and Curtis. II. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Siegel, Curtis, and Rouse. FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 7) that claim 1, the sole independent claim, is rejected erroneously because the cited references do not recite the following limitation: prior to presenting any user identification by a user, displaying a choice to the user by a media content dispensing self-service kiosk to select from a ranked list of media content representing a subset of all the media content available from the kiosk, the ranked list being based upon preferences previously provided by the user. The Examiner finds that Siegel teaches this limitation. Final Action 3 (citing Siegel i-fi-18, 14, 22, 33, 35, 37). The Answer explains that "Siegel teaches receiving a request to receive media content (i.e. choice) [and] then a profile is accessed." Answer 7. However, the claim limitation does not merely call for the display of any type of "choice," but specifically requires "displaying a choice ... to select from a ranked list of media content" - with the "ranked list" being still further defined in the claim. Siegel's "request to receive media content" 3 Appeal2014-005221 Application 12/963,699 identified by the Examiner (Answer 7 (emphasis added)), does not involve the claimed "ranked list" and, thus, does not satisfy the claim limitation. Therefore, the Appellant's argument is persuasive of error as to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of independent claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom- claims 3, 5-8, 18-20, and 22- are not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, 18-20, and 22. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation