NCR Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

14317574 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
14/317,574 06/27/2014 Muthukumar Gopalakrishnan 12-1680 9575
107681 7590 06/30/2020
NCR Corporation
864 Spring Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30308
EXAMINER
TIBLJAS, SHACOLE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MUTHUKUMAR GOPALAKRISHNAN,
SIRISHA TAKASI, and IAN M. JOY
____________

Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–5, and 7–19. We have jurisdiction over the
pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies NCR Corporation as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to maintaining
media and operational information for devices connected to a self service
terminal such as an automatic teller machine, in which application specific
device information is gathered. (Spec., Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A computer implemented method of providing
application specific device information on a self service
terminal in which multiple applications control the same device,
the method comprising the steps of:
receiving from a first application, by a software
component a command to operate a first device connected to
the self service terminal;
storing, by the software component, first application
device specific information for the first device after receiving
the command from the first application;
receiving, by the software component, from a second
application a command to operate the first device;
storing, by the software component, second application
device specific information for the first device after receiving
the command from the second application; and
wherein:
the software component is logically located between the
applications and an XFS component of the self service terminal
and is an extension to the XFS component;
storing first application device specific information for
the first device comprises storing a count of the number of
operations performed by the first device at the command of the
first application and wherein storing second application device
specific information for the first device comprises storing a
count of the number of operations performed by the first device
at the command of the second application, the data stored as a
Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

3
count for each device of an operation type performed by each
application.
Appeal Br. 16. (Claims App.)

REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–5, 7, 12, 14, 16, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Swinfen (US 2015/0186857 A1,
pub. July 2, 2015) and Meurer (US 2004/0215566 A1, pub. Oct. 28, 2004).
(Final Act. 7.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Swinfen, Meurer, and Angus et al (US
2014/0151272 A1, pub. June 5, 2014) (hereinafter “Angus”). (Final Act.
11.)
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Swinfen, Meurer, and Jones (US 2004/0154964 A1, pub.
Aug. 12, 2004). (Final Act. 12.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Swinfen, Meurer, and Werther (US
2003/0080185 A1, pub. May 1, 2003). (Final Act. 13.)
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Swinfen, Meurer, and Shah, “Development Environments
for ATMs”, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160722060032/

2 The patent ineligibility rejection of claims 1, 3–5, and 7–19 in the Final
Rejection was withdrawn in the Advisory Action. See Final Act. 4, Adv.
Act. 2, Ans. 3.

Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

4
http://www.thejaywalker.net/2006/08/development-environments-for-
atms.html. (Final Act. 14.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief presents the following
issue:3
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Swinfen
and Meurer teaches or suggests the limitation of
storing first application device specific information for
the first device comprises storing a count of the number of
operations performed by the first device at the command of the
first application and wherein storing second application device
specific information for the first device comprises storing a
count of the number of operations performed by the first device
at the command of the second application, the data stored as a
count for each device of an operation type performed by each
application,
as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitation recited in
independent claim 14. (Appeal Br. 11–14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree
with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the pertinent

3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 8, 2019); the Final Office
Action (mailed Nov. 8, 2018); the Advisory Action (mailed Jan. 31, 2019);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Aug. 12, 2019) for the respective
details.
Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

5
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–15); and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3–6.) We concur with the applicable conclusions
reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following.
In finding that the combination of Swinfen and Meurer teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on
Swinfen’s disclosure of:
(1) an ATM having an application layer comprising ATM application 21
operating under any XFS-compatible application environment, in which
messages between the application layer and the hardware layer are sent via
an XFS Manager and an XFS layer, and ATM application 21 controls or
communicates with hardware devices of the ATM terminal;
(2) a further application 38 via operation of proxy APIs is used to take
control of hardware or other devices of the ATM terminal; and
(3) usage data monitored by the ATM application, and usage data for
individual users is logged by the further application 38. (Final Act. 7–8;
Swinfen, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 140, 156, 100, 133, 229.)
The Examiner further relies on the Meurer’s disclosure of tracking of
ATM activity such as monthly count totals for ATM operations such as
withdrawal transactions, deposit transactions, jams, and total transactions,
and display of records using a transaction activity tab. (Final Act. 9; Ans. 4–
6; Meurer, Figs. 7A, 7B, 7E, ¶¶ 82, 119–120, 54.)
Appellant argues that Meurer
fails to distinguish between which of multiple applications
requested performance of the transactions and does not indicate
which devices were involved in performance of the
Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

6
transactions. For example, a withdrawal transaction may
involve a currency dispenser and a receipt printer, but at the
same time, a number of customers may not desire a receipt
which would then not be printed and if the printer is out of
paper, a receipt simply cannot be printed.
(Appeal Br. 12.) Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding that
Meurer “silently disclose[s] monitoring the device counts” is an “assertion”
that “is an admission that the reference does not provide such a teaching or
suggestion” (Appeal Br. 13, citing Final Act. 4), and that “just because a
withdrawal or deposit was made doesn’t mean a receipt was printed,” or in
baseball terminology, “just because a run was scored, there may not have
even been an RBI [run batted in] as the run may have been the result of a
passed pitch.” (Appeal Br. 14.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that “the Meurer reference (FIGs. 7A and 7E and [¶¶ 82, 119–
120]), as previously cited, tracks the daily transaction statistics of an ATM
for such operations as withdrawal transactions (W/D Txn), transfer
transactions (Tfr Txn), Deposit Transactions (Dep Txns), Jams, etc.” (Ans.
4), and that
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would know that the devices
utilized in, for example, a withdrawal transaction would include
an ATM interface, cash dispenser, a receipt printer, etc.
Therefore, the cited reference clearly teaches monitoring
specific ATM operations, and therefore, the associated devices
to the operations.
(Ans. 4–5.) The Examiner’s findings are confirmed in Meurer, in which the
present invention is well suited to support and assist a
maintenance system because the present invention can already
determine from the daily imported processor transaction files
the number of jams, mis-feeds, over or short dispenses, out-of-
Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

7
cash shutdowns, and the like occurring at a terminal, and alert
the user of needed maintenance.
(Meurer ¶ 497.) Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s detailed
findings in the Answer, as no Reply was filed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 14 commensurate in
scope, and all dependent claims not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 14.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 3–5, and 7–19.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7,
12, 14, 16,
19
103 Swinfen, Meurer 1, 3–5, 7,
12, 14, 16,
19

8, 15 103 Swinfen, Meurer,
Angus
8, 15
9 103 Swinfen, Meurer,
Jones
9
10, 11, 17,
18
103 Swinfen, Meurer,
Werther
10, 11, 17,
18

13 103 Swinfen, Meurer,
Shah
13
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7–
19

Appeal 2020-000645
Application 14/317,574

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED