Koenigsknecht, Tony Lee. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

13100595 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/100,595 05/04/2011 Tony Lee Koenigsknecht 73398-400290 3313
27717 7590 01/14/2020
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
EXAMINER
COLLINS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 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):
patentdocket_chi@seyfarth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TONY LEE KOENIGSKNECHT, KEN ERIC MAISONVILLE,
PAUL JOSEPH GRAY, ALBERT JOHN KOHN, and
SCOTT ALAN ALBRIGHT
Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10‒17, 21, and 22. Appellant’s
representative presented arguments at an oral hearing on January 7, 2020.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Freeosk Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

2
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as unpatentable over the
prior art. Appellant argues that the combined teachings of the prior art do
not disclose or render obvious the subject matter of independent claims 10
and 21. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Thus, we reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to product dispensing kiosks capable of
dispensing a single product to a consumer, such as for providing an
automated free sample dispensing system. Spec. 1. Claims 10 and 21 are
independent. Claim 10 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below, with the pertinent claim language shown in italics.
10. A delivery system device comprising:
a hopper adapted to hold objects;
a rotatable bulk auger having opposing first and second
bulk auger ends, the first bulk auger end communicating with
the hopper to receive one or more of the objects from the
hopper, and the second bulk auger end dispensing the one or
more objects;
a dispensing chute having a first chute end defining a
first extreme end of the dispensing chute and a second chute
end defining a second extreme end of the dispensing chute
opposite the first extreme end, the first chute end disposed to
receive one or more of the objects from the second bulk auger
end and convey the one or more objects from the first chute end
to the second chute end;
a rotatable delivery auger having opposing first and
second delivery auger ends, the first delivery auger end
communicating with the dispensing chute at the second chute
Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

3
end to receive the one or more objects, and the second delivery
auger end being disposed higher than the first delivery auger
end, the delivery auger including a barrel portion extending
from the first delivery auger end to the second delivery auger
end, the barrel portion having an external wall at an exterior of
the rotatable delivery auger and an internal wall at the interior
of the rotatable delivery auger, and flighting that extends from
the internal wall of the barrel portion, the flighting extending at
least partially between the first and second delivery auger ends,
the hopper, bulk auger, dispensing chute, and delivery
auger dispense the objects along a communication path and the
one or more objects are distributed along the communication
path from the dispensing chute to the first delivery auger end,
the first delivery auger end defining a point of entry from the
dispensing chute to the delivery auger at a substantially lower-
most portion of the internal wall of the delivery auger such that
objects are transferred from the dispensing chute through the
point of entry to the lower most portion of the delivery auger
and communicated by the delivery auger toward the second
delivery auger end.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix A-1 to A-2.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ruf US 4,074,507 Feb. 21, 1978
Ricciardi US 4,320,855 Mar. 23, 1982
Sulzbach US 5,547,276 Aug. 20, 1996
Kalm US 5,764,676 June 16, 1998
Gerold US 7,624,894 B2 Dec. 1, 2009
Clarke US 8,066,150 B2 Nov. 29, 2011
Coody US 2004/0008571 A1 Jan. 15, 2004
Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

4
REJECTIONS
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are on appeal:
1. Claims 10, 12, and 21 are rejected as unpatentable over Sulzbach
and Clarke.
2. Claim 11 is rejected as unpatentable over Sulzbach, Clarke, and
Coody.
3. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected as unpatentable over Sulzbach,
Clarke, and Ruf.
4. Claim 14 is rejected as unpatentable over Sulzbach, Clarke, and
Gerold.
5. Claims 16 and 22 are rejected as unpatentable over Sulzbach,
Clarke, and Ricciardi.
6. Claim 17 is rejected as unpatentable over Sulzbach, Clarke, and
Kalm.
OPINION
Rejection of claims 10, 12, and 22 as unpatentable over Sulzbach and
Clarke
In the rejection of independent clam 10, the Examiner found that
Sulzbach discloses a delivery system device including a hopper (storage
vessel 11), a rotatable bulk auger (screw 10), a dispensing chute
(intermediate tank 6),2 and a rotatable delivery auger (screw 4), the
combination of which dispense objects along a communication path.

2 The Examiner referred to element 12 of Sulzbach as corresponding to the
claimed dispensing chute. Non-Final Act. 3. Sulzbach describes item 12 as
identifying contents of intermediate tank 6. Sulzbach, col. 3, ll. 33‒34.
Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

5
Non-Final Act. 3‒4. The Examiner found that Sulzbach’s delivery auger (4)
defines “a point of entry from the dispensing chute (12) to the delivery auger
(4) at a substantially lower-most portion of the internal wall of the delivery
auger such that objects are transferred from the dispensing chute through the
point of entry to the lower most portion of the delivery auger and
communicated by the delivery auger toward the second delivery auger end.”
Id. at 4 (citing Sulzbach, Fig. 1).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Sulzbach’s
dispensing chute distributes objects such that they enter a point of entry of
the delivery auger at the “lower most portion” of the delivery auger. Appeal
Br. 12. Appellant asserts that, in Sulzbach, the objects enter the second
auger “at an upper left-hand portion thereof.” Id.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner provided an
annotated Figure 1 of Sulzbach, which is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

6
The Figure reproduced above includes an annotation identifying the
portion of Sulzbach’s screw 4 that the Examiner found to be the claimed
“substantially lower-most portion.” Ans. 8.
Appellant replies that the portion identified by the Examiner does not
correspond to the claimed subject matter because the claim language
requires the auger end to define a point of entry from the dispensing chute to
the auger. Reply Br. 1. Appellant argues that “any arguable point of entry
into the auger of Sulzbach is from above.” Id. at 2. Appellant argues that
the Examiner erred because the point of entry from the dispensing chute into
the auger is not at “a substantially lower-most portion of the internal wall of
the auger.” Id. at 3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding as to Sulzbach’s
disclosure of the claimed subject matter is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. Specifically, as shown in Figure 1 of Sulzbach, reproduced
above, contents 12 of intermediate tank 6 enter screw 4 at a point of entry
located at an upper-most portion of the screw. Thus, the Examiner has not
provided adequate evidence to support the finding that Sulzbach discloses
the claimed “first delivery auger end defining a point of entry from the
dispensing chute to the delivery auger at a substantially lower-most portion
of the internal wall of the delivery auger.” The Examiner does not rely on
Clarke to remedy this deficiency in Sulzbach. Non-Final Act. 4‒5.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10 and its dependent claim 12 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sulzbach and Clarke.
Independent claim 21 recites a limitation substantially similar to the
limitation discussed above in claim 10. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix A-3 to
Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

7
A-4. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 relies on the same unsupported
finding as to Sulzbach’s disclosure of a point of entry at a substantially
lower-most portion of the internal wall of the second auger. Non-Final Act.
6. For the same reason discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 21.
Rejections of claims 11, 13‒17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sulzbach, Clarke, and one of Coody, Ruf, Gerold,
Ricciardi, and Kalm
Claims 11 and 13‒17 depend from claim 10, and claim 22 depends
from claim 21. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix, A-2 to A-4. The Examiner
does not rely on any of Coody, Ruf, Gerold, Ricciardi, or Kalm to cure the
above-noted deficiency in the disclosure of Sulzbach that formed the basis of
the rejection of the independent claims. Non-Final Act. 7‒12. For the same
reasons discussed above in our analysis of the rejection of claims 10 and 21,
we do not sustain the rejections of claims 11, 13‒17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 10‒17, 21, and 22. Thus, we reverse.

Appeal 2018-005402
Application 13/100,595

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
10, 12, 21 103(a) Sulzbach, Clarke 10, 12, 21
11 103(a) Sulzbach, Clarke, Coody 11
13, 15 103(a) Sulzbach, Clarke, Ruf 13, 15
14 103(a) Sulzbach, Clarke, Gerold 14
16, 22 103(a) Sulzbach, Clarke, Ricciardi 16, 22
17 103(a) Sulzbach, Clarke, Kalm 17
Overall
Outcome
10‒17, 21, 22
REVERSED