Ex Parte Silva et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

12391140 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/391,140 02/23/2009
20995 7590 01/03/2019
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Edward Silva
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.
EMN8.015A 6475
EXAMINER
PARK,ILWOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN EDWARD SILVA,
SUZANNE GRACE ARENA and
ANTHONY J.K. KUA
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
Technology Center 2100
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DENISE M. POTHIER and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision finally rejecting claims 1-28. In a "Decision on Appeal" in appeal
4 2012-012589, mailed April 7, 2015 ("Prior Board Decision"), we reversed
5 the Examiner's decision rejecting the claims 1-6 and 8-22 under pre-AIA 35
6 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tome (US 2003/0163388 Al, publ.
7 Aug. 28, 2003); and claims 7 and 23-28 under§ 103(a) as being
The Appellants identify Tillster, Inc., as the real party in interest. (See
Appeal Brief, dated Aug. 16, 2017, at 3).
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 unpatentable over Tome and Beane (US 2003/0163388 Al, publ. Aug. 28,
2 2003). The same claims are before us, unamended, in the present appeal.
3 Subsequent to our decision, the Examiner entered new grounds of
4 rejection against claims 1-28. We sustain the rejection of claims 23-27
5 under§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sanches (US 2009/0159661 Al,
6 publ. June 25, 2009), Hurrell (US 2009/0199044 Al, publ. Aug. 6, 2009)
7 and Beane (US 2003/0163388 Al, publ. Aug. 28, 2003); and the rejection of
8 claim 28 under§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yagita (US
9 2006/0139690 Al, publ. June 29, 2006) and Sanches.
10 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-20 and 22 under
11 § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sanches and Ajitomi (US 2006/0133392
12 Al, publ. June 22, 2006); the rejection of claims 3 and 21 under§ I03(a) as
13 being unpatentable over Sanches, Ajitomi and Hurrell; or the rejection of
14 claim 7 under§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sanches, Ajitomi and
15 Beane.
16 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
17
18 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
19 The claims are directed to customer-operated kiosks, particularly
20 kiosks designed for quick service restaurant environments; and to methods
21 for managing such kiosks. (See Specification, dated Feb. 23, 2009
22 ("Spec."), para. 1 ). According to the Specification, the claimed system and
23 methods are "capable of maintaining kiosk devices online without physical
24 manipulation, and [are] further capable of forcing a programmatic re-
25 initialization of kiosk devices when necessary." (Spec., para. 24). Claims 1,
26 13, 23 and 28 are independent. Of these, the Appellants separately argue
2
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 claims 1, 23 and 28 (see generally Appeal Brief, dated Aug. 16, 2017 ("App.
2 Br."), at 6-11 ):
3 1. A kiosk device management system, comprising:
4 a device discovery module configured to discover a device
5 connected to a computer and report the discovered device;
6 an event bus configured to receive a notification related to
7 the discovered device from the device discovery module;
8 a model registry configured to receive information
9 indicative of the discovered device from the event bus and
10 generate a device model based on the received information; and
11 a device management module configured to receive status
12 codes from the discovered device and send a command to the
13 discovered device based on the received status code.
14
15 23. A method of providing device management services
16 in a kiosk system having a kiosk application that provides a
17 customer-operated quick service restaurant ordering interface,
18 the method comprising:
19 receiving a first device status code in a model registry of
20 the kiosk system, the device status code comprising data
21 indicative of a kiosk device failure condition;
22 storing the first status code as current status data for a
23 device model corresponding to the kiosk device in the failure
24 condition;
25 issuing a command for the kiosk application to enter a
26 lower function mode based at least in part on the first status code;
2 7 generating a re-initialization command for the failing
28 kiosk device; and
29 transmitting the re-initialization command to the failing
30 kiosk device.
31
32 28. A method of managing a kiosk system, the method
33 compnsmg:
3
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 identifying a first device that has limited functionality;
2 attempting to discover a second device that provides at
3 least a portion of the functionality typically provided by the first
4 device;
5 switching services to the discovered second device if the
6 attempt is successful; and
7 causing the kiosk to provide a message of notifying the
8 customer of the limited functionality.
9 (App. Br. 13, 16, & 17 (Claims App'x)).
10
11 ISSUES
12 The Appellants argue the patentability of the dependent claims solely
13 on the basis of the asserted patentability of the independent claims. (See
14 App. Br. 8). In addition, the Appellants argue the patentability of
15 independent method claim 13 solely on the basis of the asserted patentability
16 of independent claim 1. (See id.) This appeal turns on three issues:
17 First, would the combined teachings of Sanches and Ajitomi have
18 described or suggested a kiosk device management system including "an
19 event bus configured to receive a notification related to the discovered
20 device from the device discovery module; [ and] a model registry configured
21 to receive information indicative of the discovered device from the event bus
22 and generate a device model based on the received information," as recited
23 in independent claim 1?
24 Second, did Sanches describe or suggest steps of "receiving a first
25 device status code in a model registry of the kiosk system, the device status
26 code comprising data indicative of a kiosk device failure condition;"
27 "storing the first status code as current status data for a device model
28 corresponding to the kiosk device in the failure condition;" and "issuing a
4
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 command for the kiosk application to enter a lower function mode based at
2 least in part on the first status code," as recited in independent claim 23?
3 Third, did Y amagita describe or suggest steps of "identifying a first
4 device that has limited functionality" and "switching services to the
5 discovered second device if the attempt is successful," as recited in
6 independent claim 28?
7
8 FINDINGS OF FACT
9 The record supports the following findings of fact ("FF") by a
10 preponderance of the evidence.
11
12 Sanches
13 1. Sanches describes a self-service terminal ("SST") 10. (See
14 Sanches, para. 46). Sanches teaches that"[ c ]ommon examples of SSTs
15 include automated teller machines (ATMs), information kiosks, financial
16 services centers, bill payment kiosks, lottery kiosks, postal services
1 7 machines, check-in and check-out terminals such as those used in the hotel,
18 car rental, and airline industries, retail self-checkout terminals, vending
19 machines, and the like." (Sanches, para. 3; see Final Office Action, mailed
20 Nov. 16, 2016 ("Final Act."), at 7).
21 2. The SST 10 described by Sanches includes peripheral devices
22 18, such as printers. (See Sanches, paras. 46, 49 & 50; see also Final Act. 29
23 & 30). In addition, the SST 10 described by Sanches includes a
24 microprocessor 32 and a main memory 34. (See Sanches, para. 51).
25 Software components, including a run-time platform 70, a Web browser 80
26 and an error recovery agent 90, reside in the main memory 34 after the SST
5
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 10 is booted. (See Sanches, paras. 54, 58, 60 & 63). The run-time platform
2 70 includes a CEN XPS-compliant interface for communicating with the
3 peripheral devices 18. "This CEN XPS interface is used to instruct the
4 devices to perform operations, and is also used to obtain device status and
5 fault management information." (Sanches, para. 58; see also Final Act. 9 &
6 23).
7 3. According to Sanches, the "error recovery agent 90 monitors
8 the devices 18 within the ATM 10, and records the status of at least some of
9 the devices 18 and events taking place by registering with those devices to
10 receive event notifications via [the] CEN XPS interface." (Sanches, para.
11 63; see also Final Act. 8).
12 4. The "error recovery agent 90 may be programmed to initiate
13 error recovery for devices 18 within the ATM 10, for example, by
14 instructing the ATM controller 18k to reboot, or to terminate the Web
15 browser 80 and then restart the Web browser 80." (Sanches, para. 130; see
16 also Final Act. 23 & 24). In addition, the error recovery agent 90 "may
17 record the status of each device [ 18], each event that occurs, and the like."
18 (Sanches, para. 132; see also Final Act. 23).
19 5. Sanches specifically teaches forming a financial institution
20 network 100 including an Internet server 112 and a plurality of ATMs 10.
21 (See Sanches, para. 67). Transactions initiated through an ATM 10
22 connected to the financial institution network 100 are conducted using
23 software resident on the Internet server 112 so as to "provide a uniform and
24 consistent customer interface" and to facilitate software updates. (Sanches,
25 para. 5; see also id. para. 8). The teachings of Sanches specifically address
26 the problem that arises if the ATM 10 on which a transaction is initiated
6
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 loses contact with the Internet server 112 before the transaction is
2 completed. (See Sanches, para. 7). The role of the error recovery agent 90
3 in the in the system described in Sanches is to monitor the ATM 10 to detect
4 a failure such as a communications problem between the Web browser 80
5 and the Internet server 112; the receipt of information that cannot be
6 rendered to the customer by the Web browser; or the receipt of a command
7 from the Internet server that cannot be parsed by the Web browser. (See
8 Sanches, paras. 8 & 13).
9 6. Sanches teaches that "the Web browser [ 80] sends a heartbeat
10 to the [ error recovery] agent 90 at predetermined intervals ... to indicate
11 that the Web browser 80 is still functioning correctly." (Sanches, para. 65).
12 In the event that the error recovery agent 90 fails to receive the heartbeat, the
13 agent executes an error recovery process designed to either complete or
14 cancel any incomplete transaction initiated at the ATM 10. (See Sanches,
15 para. 95; see generally id., paras. 97-122). As part of the error recovery
16 process, "the error recovery agent 90 presents an out-of-service screen
17 indicating that the ATM 10 cannot be used at present." (See Sanches, paras.
18 101 & 115).
19
20 Ajitomi
21 7. Ajitomi teaches connecting household appliances to a home
22 local network. (See Ajitomi, paras. 6 & 10). Ajitomi teaches facilitating
23 remote control of those appliances from a separate network such as the
24 Internet by adding a gateway device connected to both the home local
25 network and the separate network. The gateway device converts control
26 command packets received from the separate network into commands
7
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 executable by the household appliances connected to the home local
2 network. (See Ajitomi, paras. 10 & 11 ).
3 8. The gateway device 22 uses a Resource List Document 106
4 stored in XML format to track the household appliances connected to the
5 home local network. (See Ajitomi, paras. 46 & 50-52). In addition, the
6 gateway device 22 includes a classification storage unit 105 that maintains a
7 classification table including addresses and control protocols for household
8 appliances connected to the home local network. (See Ajitomi, paras. 46, 52
9 & 53; see also id., Fig. 2).
10 9. When an appliance is attached to the home local network, it
11 sends a signal to the network indicating its presence. The format of the
12 signal is dependent on the control protocol with which the network interface
13 of the appliance complies. (Compare Ajitomi, para. 44 with id., para. 74).
14 10. For example, a personal video recorder ("PVR") 21 having a
15 network interface compliant with the Universal Plug and Play ("UPnP")
16 control protocol would send to the home local network, when connected, a
17 Simple Service Discovery Protocol ("SSDP") alive packet. (See Ajitomi,
18 para. 44). The gateway device 22 includes a UPnP Control Point function
19 31 defining a connection detecting unit 101 that recognizes the SSDP alive
20 packet. In addition, the gateway device 22 includes an initial connection
21 determiner 102 that determines whether the PVR is being connected for the
22 first time by comparing appliance information for the PVR with either the
23 Resource List Document 106 or the classification table in the classification
24 storage unit 105. (See Ajitomi, para. 46; see also Final Act. 10). If the
25 initial connection determiner 102 determines that the PVR 21 is being
26 connected for the first time, information regarding the PVR is added to the
8
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 Resource List Document 106 and the classification table. (See generally
2 Ajitomi, paras. 47-53; see also Final Act. 10 & 11).
3
4 Yagita
5 11. Y agita addresses methods for grouping documents for printing
6 on a network printer. (See Yagita, paras. 2--4 & 160). One particular
7 problem that Y agita addresses involves substitute printing, that is, the
8 transfer of one or more documents in a grouping from a first network printer
9 to a second printer if an error occurs in the first printer while printing the
10 documents in the grouping. (See Yagita, paras. 49 & 129).
11 12. Yagita describes a network 106 including a plurality of
12 processors 102-104 and at least one network printer. (See Yagita, paras. 56
13 & 58; see also id., Fig. 1).
14 13. Ordinarily, each document submitted to a network printer for
15 printing is associated with a print job information table 501. The print job
16 information table identifies, among other items of information, a document
17 name and a group ID associating the document with a grouping. (See
18 Yagita, paras. 92-94; see also id., Fig. 5).
19 14. If a job control print service 3 22 detects an error in a network
20 printer, such as the printer running out of paper, after the printer begins
21 printing a grouping of documents, the print job information tables 501 for
22 documents transmitted to the printer, but not yet printed, are retrieved. (See
23 Yagita, paras. 129, 131 & 132). For each such document, the processor
24 102-104 from which the request to print the document was made displays a
25 substitution notification dialog notifying the user that an error has occurred
26 in the printer to which to document has been transmitted. In addition, the
9
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 substitution notification dialog provides the user with a list of available
2 substitute printers and allows the user to select one of the available printers
3 to print the document. (See Yagita, paras. 133 & 137; see also id., para. 9).
4 15. If the user selects a substitute printer, the document is removed
5 from the grouping. That is, the group ID is removed from the print job
6 information table 501 associated with the document. The document and its
7 print job information are then transmitted to the substitute printer for
8 separate printing. (See Yagita, paras. 135 & 136).
9
10 ANALYSIS
11 First Issue
12 Independent claim 1 recites a kiosk device management system
13 including "an event bus configured to receive a notification related to the
14 discovered device from the device discovery module; [and] a model registry
15 configured to receive information indicative of the discovered device from
16 the event bus and generate a device model based on the received
17 information." Independent claim 13 recites a method of managing kiosk
18 devices in a kiosk system including steps of "reporting information related to
19 each of the plurality of discovered devices to an event bus; [and]
20 transmitting via the event bus the information related to each of the plurality
21 of discovered devices to a model registry." As discussed in the Prior Board
22 Decision:
23 When a claim requires plural distinct structural elements, it is
24 improper to identify a single disclosed element as corresponding
25 to the plural recited [claim] elements. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip
26 Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re
27 Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring
10
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only
2 two means, using one element twice).
3 (Prior Board Decision 4 & 5).
4 Despite this rule, the Examiner finds that both the event bus and the
5 model registry recited in claim 1, and used in the method of claim 13, read
6 on "functions" of the error recovery agent 90 described by Sanches. (See
7 Final Act. 8). For example, although noting different functions the error
8 recovery agent performs, the Examiner relies on the same quoted passages in
9 Sanches' paragraph 63 for both the recited "event bus" and "model registry."
10 (Ans. 29--30 (citing and quoting the same passages in Sanches, para. 63).)
11 Because the Examiner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the
12 evidence that the error recovery agent 90 described by Sanches has separate
13 functions corresponding to the recited event bus and model registry, we do
14 not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claim 13. (See App. Br. 6 & 7; Reply
15 Brief, dated May 7, 2018 ("Reply Br."), at 4 & 5).
16 The Examiner appears to use the word "function" here in a technical
17 sense, namely, to denote "a self-contained software routine that performs a
18 task." Encyclopedia, https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term
19 /43578/function (last accessed Dec. 21, 2018) ("function"). Sanches does
20 not explicitly describe the error recovery agent 90 as having separate
21 functions in this sense. Therefore, the Examiner must rely on inherency to
22 support the findings regarding the event bus and the model registry.
23 According to Sanches, the "error recovery agent 90 monitors the
24 devices 18 within the ATM 10, and records the status of at least some of the
25 devices 18 and events taking place by registering with those devices to
26 receive event notifications via [the] CEN XPS interface." (FF 3, quoting
27 Sanches, para. 63). In addition, the "error recovery agent 90 may be
11
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 programmed to initiate error recovery for devices 18 within the ATM 10, for
2 example, by instructing the ATM controller 18k to reboot, or to terminate
3 the Web browser 80 and then restart the Web browser 80" (FF 4, quoting
4 Sanches, para. 130); and to "record the status of each device [18], each event
5 that occurs, and the like." (Id., quoting Sanches, para. 132). One may
6 assume, for present purposes only, that these teachings, along with those
7 other teachings cited by the Examiner at pages 8 and 9 of the Final Office
8 Action, and at pages 29--31 of the Examiner's Answer, mailed March 8,
9 2018 ("Answer" or "Ans."), demonstrate that Sanches' error recovery agent
10 90 acts as a "model registry configured to ... generate a device model based
11 on" information indicative of the discovered device, as recited in claim 1,
12 the only communication.
13 Nevertheless, the cited passages describe only the receipt by the error
14 recovery agent 90 of event notifications from the peripheral devices via the
15 CEN XPS-compliant interface, which the Examiner identifies with the
16 device discovery module recited in claim 1 (see Final Act. 8; see also FF 3).
17 Sanches does not describe how the event notifications, or information
18 derived from the event notifications, might be communicated within the
19 error recovery agent. Thus, the disclosure of Sanches does not support a
20 finding that the error recovery agent 90 necessarily includes a function,
21 separate from a function corresponding to the recited model registry, that
22 acts as an event bus "configured to receive notification related to [a]
23 discovered device from the device discovery module," that is, the CEN XFS-
24 compliant interface, such that the function corresponding to the model
25 registry "receive[ s] information indicative of the discovered device" from
26 the function corresponding to the event bus.
12
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 The teachings of Ajitomi do not remedy this deficiency. As indicated
2 on pages 10 and 11 of the Final Office Action, and on pages 32 and 33 of the
3 Answer, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Ajitomi to modify Sanches'
4 error recovery agent 90 to generate a device model based on received
5 information indicative of a discovered device. The Examiner does not
6 appear to rely on the teachings of Ajitomi for any teachings regarding an
7 event bus "configured to receive notification related to [a] discovered device
8 from [a] device discovery module;" or regarding configuring a model
9 registry to "receive information indicative of the discovered device" from
10 the event bus. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--6,
11 8-20 and 22 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sanches and Ajitomi.
12 With respect to claims 3 and 21, the Examiner cites Hurrell as
13 "teach[ing] the device management module is further configured to generate
14 a re-initialization command if at least one of inactivity or recoverable failure
15 in the discovered device is detected." (See Final Act. 19; see also id. at 25).
16 This teaching fails to remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of Sanches
17 and Ajitomi as applied to parent claims 1 and 13. We do not sustain the
18 rejection of claims 3 and 21 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over
19 Sanches, Ajitomi and Hurrell.
20 With respect to claim 7, the Examiner cites Beane as teaching that an
21 SST may provide "a customer-operated quick service ordering interface."
22 (Final Act. 26). This teaching also fails to remedy the deficiencies in the
23 teachings of Sanches and Ajitomi as applied to parent claim 1. We do not
24 sustain the rejection of claim 7 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over
25 Sanches, Ajitomi and Beane.
13
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 Second Issue
2 Claim 23 recites a method including steps of receiving a first device
3 status code in a model registry of the kiosk system, the device status code
4 comprising data indicative of a kiosk device failure condition; storing the
5 first status code as current status data for a device model corresponding to
6 the kiosk device in the failure condition; and issuing a command for the
7 kiosk application to enter a lower function mode based at least in part on the
8 first status code. The Examiner finds that Sanches teaches these steps. (See
9 Final Act. 23 & 24; Ans. 34 & 35). The Appellants disagree. (See App. Br.
10 9 & 10; Reply Br. 6 & 7). The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
11 Claim 23 does not recite an event bus. Therefore, the argument that
12 prompted us to reverse the rejections of claims 1-22 is inapplicable to claim
13 23 and its dependent claims.
14 Sanches teaches that the CEN XPS-compliant interface obtains device
15 status and fault management information (see FF 2) but that the error
16 recovery agent may be programmed to initiate error recovery for peripheral
17 devices within the SST (see FF 4). Sanches teaches that the "error recovery
18 agent 90 monitors the devices 18 within the ATM 10, and records the status
19 of at least some of the devices 18 and events taking place by registering with
20 those devices to receive event notifications via [the] CEN XPS interface."
21 (FF 3, quoting Sanches, para. 63). Therefore, Sanches' teachings support
22 the Examiner's finding that the error recovery agent 90 "receive[s] a first
23 device status code in a model registry of the kiosk system, the device status
24 code comprising data indicative of a kiosk device failure condition" as
25 recited. (See Final Act. 23 (citing Sanches, paras. 58 & 67); see also Ans.
26 34 & 35 (citing Sanches paras. 3, 37, 58, 63, 65, 116 & 132)).
14
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 Sanches also teaches that the error recovery agent 90 may record the
2 status of each device. (See FF 4). Therefore, Sanches' teachings support the
3 Examiner's finding that the error recovery agent 90 "stor[es] the first status
4 code as current status data for a device model corresponding to the kiosk
5 device in the failure condition." (See Final Act. 23 & 24).
6 Finally, Sanches teaches an error recovery process, implemented in
7 the event of a loss of communication between the Internet server 112 and the
8 Web browser 80, in which the error recovery agent generates an out-of-
9 service screen for display to the customer and, presumably, locks the
10 customer out of initiating any further transaction until communication is
11 restored between the Internet server and the Web browser. (See FF 6).
12 Sanches also teaches that the error recovery agent may be programmed to
13 initiate error recovery for peripheral devices. (See FF 4). If so, one of
14 ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to provide the error recovery
15 processes for peripheral devices with a capability to generate an out-of-
16 service screen and to lock the customer out of initiating any further
17 transaction until the fault in the peripheral device had been remedied. In
18 other words, it would have been obvious to modify the system taught by
19 Sanches based on the above teachings such that the error recovery device
20 "issu[ ed] a command for the kiosk application to enter a lower function
21 mode [ namely, a mode locking out the customer from initiating any further
22 transaction] based at least in part on the first status code." (See Final Act.
23 24).
24 Therefore, the Appellants' arguments addressing claim 23 are not
25 persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claims 23-27 under§ 103(a) as
26 being unpatentable over Sanches, Hurrell and Beane.
15
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 Third Issue
2 Claim 28 recites a method of managing a kiosk system including steps
3 of identifying a first device that has limited functionality; attempting to
4 discover a second device that provides at least a portion of the functionality
5 typically provided by the first device; and switching services to the
6 discovered second device if an attempt to discover a second device that
7 provides at least a portion of the functionality typically provided by the first
8 device is successful. The Examiner finds that the substitute printing method
9 described in paragraphs 129--13 8 of Yagita satisfies these limitations. (See
10 Final Act. 28 & 29). The Appellants disagree. (See App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
11 7 & 8). The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
12 The Examiner cites Yagita, rather than Sanches, as the primary
13 reference against claim 28. Therefore, the argument that prompted us to
14 reverse the rejections of claims 1-22 is inapplicable to claim 28.
15 Claim 28 recites the step of "identifying a first device that has limited
16 functionality." Yagita describes initiating the process of substitute printing
17 "when the job control print service 322 detects that an error has occurred in
18 the network printer." (Yagita, para. 131; see also FF 14; Ans. 36). Yagita
19 provides an example of such an "error," namely, that the network printer has
20 run out of paper. (See FF 14, citing Yagita, para. 129). A printer is an
21 example of a peripheral device that might be found in a kiosk device (see FF
22 2); and running out of paper limits the functionality of a printer until the
23 paper is replenished. Therefore, Y agita describes identifying a first device
24 that has limited functionality. (See Ans. 36 & 37).
25 Claim 28 recites the step of "attempting to discover a second device
26 that provides at least a portion of the functionality typically provided by the
16
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 first device." The Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that
2 Yagita fails to describe this step. (See Reply Br. 7 & 8). Yagita teaches
3 that, if a job control print service 322 detects an error in a network printer,
4 such as the printer running out of paper, after the printer begins printing a
5 grouping of documents, the processor from which the request to print the
6 document was made displays a substitution notification dialog providing the
7 user with a list of available substitute printers. (See FF 14). This teaching
8 implies that that the system has succeeded in discovering at least one
9 substitute printer, which may be designated a second device that provides at
10 least a portion of the functionality typically provided by the printer
11 indicating an error condition. In other words, Y agita teaches attempting to
12 discover a second device that provides at least a portion of the functionality
13 typically provided by the first device. (See Ans. 37).
14 Claim 2 8 also recites the step of "switching services to the discovered
15 second device if the attempt [ to discover a second device that provides at
16 least a portion of the functionality typically provided by the first device] is
1 7 successful." If the user selects an enumerated substitute printer in response
18 to the substitution notification dialog displayed in response to the detection
19 of a printer error, Yagita' s system switches printing services to the substitute
20 printer. (See FF 15). Yagita describes switching services to the discovered
21 second device if the attempt is successful. (See Ans. 37).
22
23 DECISION
24 We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 23-28.
25 More specifically, we sustain the rejections of claims 23-27 under
17
Appeal2018-005461
Application 12/3 91, 140
1 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sanches, Hurrell and Beane; and of
2 claim 28 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yagita and Sanches.
3 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22.
4 More specifically, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4---6,
5 8-20 and 22 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sanches and
6 Ajitomi; of claims 3 and 21, as being unpatentable over Sanches, Ajitomi
7 and Hurrell; and of claim 7 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over
8 Sanches, Ajitomi and Beane.
9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
10 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(l). See 37
11 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18