Ex Parte Adamec

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

13177247 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/177,247 07/06/2011
107681 7590 12/21/2015
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Jeremy Adamec
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.
11-53 6101
EXAMINER
MIKELS, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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 ANDREW JEREMY ADAMEC
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/1 77 ,24 7
Technology Center 2800
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/177,247
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The invention relates to an optical code scanner (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An optical code scanner comprising:
a weigh scale where the scale determines a value for the
weight of an item placed on the scale or for a force applied to
scale;
a scanning device where the device reads an optical code
presented to the optical code scanner and detects when an
object is located at a first predetermined location;
a computer memory that stores software and data;
a computer processor in communication with the
computer memory, the weigh scale, and the scanning device;
and
where the software, when executed by the processor,
implements the features and functions of the optical code
scanner including receiving from the weigh scale a value for a
force applied to the scale, and receiving from the scanning
device an indication that an object is located in the first
predetermined location while the force is being applied, and
determining that a first input request has been made after
receiving the indication, and implementing the input request.
2
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/177,247
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Russell
Murofushi
US 2004/0238637 Al Dec. 2, 2004
US 2007/0138271 Al Jun. 21, 2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Russell.
Claims 7, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Murofushi.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Appellant contends Russell fails to disclose the claim 1 limitation "a
scanning device where the device reads an optical code presented to the
optical code scanner and detects when an object is located at a first
predetermined location" (Br. 6-8). Specifically, Appellant argues "there is
no predefined or inherent first predetermined location" in Russell because
"the location of the boundary that defines being able to read or not being
able [to] read a bar code is not fixed" (Br. 7). Further, Appellant argues the
claim requires detecting an "object" within the "first predetermined
location," and the Specification defines the "object" as the finger of a user,
not a bar code (id.). Appellant also contends Russell fails to disclose the
claim 1 limitation "receiving from the weigh scale a value for a force applied
to the scale, and receiving from the scanning device an indication that an
3
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/177,247
object is located in the first predetermined location while the force is being
applied" (Br. 8). Finally, Appellant contends Russell does not disclose
"determining that a first input request has been made after receiving the
indication and implementing the input request" (Br. 9). We disagree with
Appellant.
Russell discloses a point of sale (POS) customer kiosk terminal 11
with a bioptical laser scanning bar code reading unit 15 and a weigh tray 18
(Russell, i-fi-186-88; Figs. 3A and 3B). Figure 3A shows the bar code reading
unit 15 includes two scanning windows, a vertical scanning window 32 and
a bottom scanning window 25, each of which create a scanning volume-
shown by dashed lines in Figure 3A-when the window area is projected
outward from the bar code reading unit. The Examiner finds Russell's
scanning volume meets the limitation of a "first predetermined location" as
recited in claim 1 (Ans. 7-8). Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to
respond to this finding in the Examiner's Answer. Absent arguments to the
contrary, we agree with the Examiner's finding. That is, Appellant's Appeal
Brief arguments are drawn to Russell's 2-D bar code symbol reader 110 (see
Br. 6-7), not Russell's bar code reading unit 15 with projected scanning
volumes which the Examiner relies upon in the Answer (see Ans. 7-8).
Therefore, the Appeal Brief arguments are not persuasive of error in the
Examiner's finding that Russell discloses the claim 1 limitation "a scanning
device where the device ... detects when an object is located at a first
predetermined location" (Ans. 7).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the claimed
"object" must be a finger, not a bar code. Claim 1 does not define the
"object," and a limitation from the Specification will not be read into the
4
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/177,247
claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184--85 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we construe the term "object" broadly, but reasonably, to
include an item for sale that may contain a bar code. Russell discloses one
purpose of the POS customer kiosk terminal is for the customer "to view the
product price, weight and identity information about scanned items"
(Russell, i-f 85). We find Russell's scanned items, i.e., items for sale, which
would be placed within a scanning volume as discussed above in order to be
scanned by the bar code reading unit, meet the limitation of the claimed
"object."
Further, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Russell
discloses "receiving from the weigh scale a value for a force applied to the
scale, and receiving from the scanning device an indication that an object is
located in the first predetermined location while the force is being applied,"
as recited in claim 1. We note that these are functional limitations of an
apparatus claim, and thus, the prior art anticipates if it is capable of
performing the claimed functions. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Russell discloses the bar code reading unit
supports the weigh tray such that the gravitational loading of the tray by
items to purchase is "measured by electronic produce scale subsystem 21
integrated within the bottom portion of the POS-based bioptical scanning
unit" (Russell, i-f 88). Russell's Figure 3B shows the weigh tray 18 includes
a portion directly above bottom scanning window 25 of the bioptical laser
scanning bar code reading unit 15. Thus, an item can be placed on the weigh
tray of Russell's POS customer kiosk terminal so as to produce a measurable
force, and also be within the scanning volume of the bottom scanning
window. Accordingly, we find that Russell's device is capable of receiving
5
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/177,247
a value for an applied force of an item placed on the weigh tray and
receiving an indication that the item is in the "first predetermined
location"-i.e., the scanning volume of the bottom scanning window-while
the force is applied.
Finally, we are not persuaded Russell fails to disclose the claim 1
limitations "determining that a first input request has been made after
receiving the indication, and implementing the input request." 1 We agree
with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that the claimed
"first input request" encompasses Russell's customer presenting an item for
scanning (see Ans. 9). Russell's device allows a customer's item to be
scanned so that "the customer is able to view the product price, weight and
identity information about scanned items" (Russell, i-f 85). We find that
Russell's device necessarily performs some function for determining that an
item has been presented for scanning in order to then perform the function of
displaying the "product price, weight and identity information" (Russell, i1
85), and these functions meet the limitations of "determining that a first
input request has been made after receiving the indication, and implementing
the input request" recited in claim 1.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2---6, 8, 10-14, and 16-19 not specifically argued separately.
1 Although Appellant argues this limitation with respect to claim 11, the
language Appellant quotes is actually recited in claim 1 (see Br. 9). Thus,
we treat Appellant's argument as directed to claim 1.
6
Appeal2014-000038
Application 13/177,247
The Obviousness Rejection
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 15, Appellant contends Murofushi fails to
teach the elements missing from Russell (Br. 10). However, as discussed
above, we are not persuaded Russell fails to disclose any of the elements
Appellant argues. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 9, and 15
for the same reasons as claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1---6, 8, 10-14, and 16-19.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
7, 9, and 15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19
• ,..,.._ 1
1s arnrmea.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
dw
7