Ex Parte Lipkin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

10558571 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID ISRAEL LIPKIN
____________

Appeal 2010-006612
Application 10/558,571
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006612
Application 10/558,571

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 4, 6 to 14, 16 to 22, 28 to 33, 35 to 41,
43, 45 to 51, 57, and 59 to 61. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An electronic cash management methodology comprising
providing a plurality of electronic cash safes under the
physical control of a financial institution, operating as a vault
cash manager which owns cash located therein, each of said
plurality of electronic cash safes being associated with a cash
acceptor and a communicator;
upon receipt of cash into one of said plurality of
electronic cash safes, verified by said cash acceptor, employing
said communicator for providing a computer network
notification from said one of said plurality of electronic cash
safes indicating receipt of said cash and at least partially
identifying a product sold in return for the cash;
responsive to said computer network notification from
said communicator, effecting payment to a supplier of said
product by said financial institution;
accruing non-loan interest payable from an operator of
said one of said plurality of electronic cash safes to said
financial institution in respect of said payment;
collecting said cash from said one of said plurality of
electronic cash safes on behalf of said financial institution and
physically depositing said cash to the account of said financial
institution; and
payment to said financial institution by said operator of
said one of said plurality of electronic cash safes of said non-
loan interest accrued in respect of said payment to said supplier
for a period between said effecting payment to said supplier and
said depositing said cash.

Appeal 2010-006612
Application 10/558,571

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Longfield US 5,724,523 Mar. 3, 1998
Hall US 6,158,657 Dec. 12, 2000
Herziger US 2002/0082994 A1 Jun. 27, 2002
Katou US 6,481,620 B1 Nov. 19, 2002
Siemens US 6,659,340 B2 Dec. 9, 2003
Chirnomas US 2004/0030648 A1 Feb. 12, 2004

Ann All, Cash Control : Management Options Can Help Cut Costs,
ATMmarketplace.com, 1-4 (2003) (hereinafter “Cash Control”).

David Breitkopf, Program Gives Bank Fees for Supplying ATM Cash,
168 Am. Banker, 1-2 (2003) (hereinafter “Breitkopf”).

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 6, 16, 35, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
2. Claims 1 to 4, 6, 7, 9 to 14, 16, 17, 19 to 22, 29 to 33, 35, 36, 38 to 41,
43, 45, 46, 48 to 51, and 59 to 61 as unpatentable over Herziger,
Siemens, Chirnomas, Breitkopf, Cash Control, and Longfield.
3. Claims 8, 18, 28, 37, 47, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herziger, Siemens, Chirnomas, Breitkopf, Cash
Control, Longfield, and Katou.

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
The Appellant has not addressed the rejection of claims 6, 16, 35, and
45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Therefore, we will sustain this
rejection.
Appeal 2010-006612
Application 10/558,571

4
Obviousness
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 21 and the
claims dependent thereon. We agree with the Appellant that the cited prior
art does not disclose a method including the step “responsive to said
computer network notification from said communicator, effecting payment
to a supplier of said product by said financial institution.”
The Examiner finds that Herziger does not disclose this subject matter
(Ans. 7). The Examiner relies on Chirnomas for teaching an operator paying
a supplier for goods sold in a vending machine and that this payment may be
on a pay as you go basis. However, the Examiner does not direct our
attention to a teaching in either Herziger or Chirnomas that a payment is
made by a financial institution in either Herziger or Chirnomas in response
to a computer network’s notification of an electronic cash sale. We find that
even though Herziger does disclose that coupons, tickets, etc., can be sold
from an ATM, the Examiner has not directed our attention to a disclosure in
Herziger of how the supplier of the coupons and tickets are paid and
certainly has not established that the financial institution pays the supplier.
We find that Chirnomas discloses that a landlord that houses a vending
machine is compensated for products. Chirnomas does not disclose that a
supplier is paid for the product by the financial institution.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claims 1, 11 and 21 and the claims dependent thereon.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting
claim 30 by Appellants arguments that the cited art does not disclose a
vending machine having cash therein that is treated as vault cash, and is
managed and controlled by the financial institution because claim 30 does
Appeal 2010-006612
Application 10/558,571

5
not recite a vending machine. As such, we will sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claim 30. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claims 31 to 33, and 35 to 39 because the Appellants have not addressed the
separate patentability of these claims.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting
claims 40 and 50 and the claims dependent thereon by the Arguments
advanced by the Appellant. In this regard, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred because the cited references do not disclose that cash put in
is treated as vault cash because claims 40 and 50 do not recite that the cash
put into the machine is treated as vault cash. In addition, claims 40 and 50
do not recite that the financial institution pays the supplier. We agree with
the Examiner that as Herziger discloses an ATM machine, Herziger teaches
that the cash in the ATM machine is controlled by a financial institution. In
view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40
and 50. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to the claims
dependent on claims 40 and 50 because the Appellant has not argued the
separate patentability of these claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 14, 16 to 22, 28
and 29, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 16, 35 and 45 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and claims 30 to 33, 35 to 41, 43, 45 to
51, 57, 60 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-006612
Application 10/558,571

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh