Ex Parte Nago et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

10950251 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

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.
10/950,251 09/24/2004 Tokimi Nago 03-613-2 4897
34704 7590 03/27/2012
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
EXAMINER
BEAUCHAINE, MARK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOKIMI NAGO, KAZUHIKO OKAMOTO, and TORU SEKI
____________

Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tokimi Nago et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a bill validator, in particular,
of the type which has a centering device capable of centralizing bills of
different widths along a longitudinal central axis of a bill passageway in the
validator.” Spec. 1. Claims 11 and 15, reproduced below, are representative
of the subject matter on appeal.
11. A bill validator with a centering device comprising:
a conveyer device for inwardly transporting a bill
inserted from an inlet into the validator along a passageway;
a validation sensor for converting a physical feature of
the bill moved along the passageway into electric signals;
a control device for receiving the electric signals from the
validation sensor to discriminate authenticity of the bill and
drive the conveyer device in response to the result of the
authenticity discrimination;
said centering device mounted on the validator ahead of
the validation sensor, the centering device comprising a pair of
pinch jaws positioned on the opposite sides of the passageway,
and a centering motor such as a stepping motor for moving the
pinch jaws toward and away from each other for reciprocation
of the pinch jaws;
wherein the conveyer device comprises belts which have
a front belt mounted on a lower casing and a pair of side belts
in the opposite sides of the front belt, a roller device provided
on an upper casing, an inlet sensor provided ahead of the belts
in electric connection to the control device, and a convey motor
for driving the belts;
the centering device further comprises a trigger sensor
provided in the vicinity of the belts in electric connection to the
control device;
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

3
the roller device comprises a front roller and a pair of
side rollers which respectively are in contact to the front and
side belts mounted on the lower casing, a holder formed into a
U-shape, a first shaft mounted on the holder for supporting the
front roller, a second shaft rotatably mounted on the holder, the
second shaft having end stems extending from the holder for
supporting the side rollers thereon, and springs wound around
the end stems of the second shaft for applying elastic force on
the holder when the holder is rotated around the second shaft;
the front and side rollers of the roller device are rotated
respectively in contact to the front and side belts to inwardly
transport the bill inserted from the inlet when the convey motor
is rotated in the forward direction;
the trigger sensor detects the bill to produce a detection
signal to the control device which causes the convey motor and
side rollers to rotate in the adverse direction so that the bill is
returned toward the inlet and at the same time, the holder
together with the front roller is rotated around the second shaft
away from the front belt under a frictional force applied on the
holder by elastic force of the springs to thereby keep the holder
in the inclined condition and release the engagement of the bill
with the belts;
then, the centering motor is activated to move the pinch
jaws toward and away from each other for the centering
operation of the bill;
the centering motor can arrive at slippage when warpage
resistance of the centered bill is greater than an inherent holding
torque of the stepping motor; and
the conveyer device further inwardly transports the bill
along the passageway after the stepping motor arrives at
slippage.
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

4
15. A bill validator with a centering device comprising:
a conveyer device for inwardly transporting a bill
inserted from an inlet into the validator along a passageway;
a validation sensor for converting a physical feature of
the bill moved along the passageway into electric signals;
a control device for receiving the electric signals from the
validation sensor to discriminate authenticity of the bill and
drive the conveyer device in response to the result of the
authenticity discrimination;
a centering device mounted on the validator ahead of the
validation sensor, the centering device comprising a pair of
pinch jaws positioned on the opposite sides of the passageway,
and a centering motor for moving the pinch jaws toward and
away from each other for reciprocation of the pinch jaws to
perform a centering operation wherein the pinch jaws come into
contact with side edges of the bill between the pinch jaws to
align a central line of the bill with a central line of the
passageway;
wherein the centering motor is a stepping motor which
can arrive at slippage when warpage resistance of the centered
bill is greater than inherent holding torque of the centering
motor;
wherein the conveyer device further inwardly transports
the bill along the passageway after the stepping motor arrives at
slippage;
the conveyer device comprises belts, rollers in contact to
the belts, and a reversible convey motor for driving the belts;
when the convey motor is driven in the forward direction,
the rollers are rotated under contact to the belts to inwardly
convey the bill along the passage way; and
when the convey motor is driven in the adverse direction,
the belts are rotated in the adverse direction to return the bill
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

5
toward the inlet and at the same time, release the bill from the
engagement with the belts and rollers, and to place the bill
between pinch jaws under the released condition for the
centering operation of the bill.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Kato US 5,039,080 Aug. 13, 1991
Menke US 5,368,147 Nov. 29, 1994
Onipchenko US 6,164,642 Dec. 26, 2000
Yamamoto US 6,554,270 B2 Apr. 29, 2003
Kallin US 6,789,795 B2 Sep. 14, 2004
Rosello US 6,880,707 B2 Apr. 19, 2005
Bascom US 7,168,355 B2 Jan. 30, 2007
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 11-14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menke, Kallin, Kato, Rosello, Yamamoto, Bascom, and Onipchenko.
2. Claims 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menke, Bascom, and Yamamoto.
3. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Menke,
Bascom, Yamamoto, Kallin, and Onipchenko.
4. Claims 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menke, Bascom, Yamamoto, Kallin, Onipchenko, Kato, and Rosello.
5. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Menke,
Bascom, Yamamoto, and Onipchenko.

Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

6
ISSUES
The issues presented by this appeal are:
Does Rosello disclose a bill validator comprising a front roller that is
supported on a first shaft mounted on a rotating holder and a second shaft
that is mounted on the holder and has end stems extending from the holder
and supporting side rollers thereon as called for in claim 11?
Would the combined teachings of Menke, Bascom, and Yamamoto
result in a bill validator having a conveyer device as called for in claim 15?
ANALYSIS
Rejections based on Menke, Kallin, Kato, Rosello, Yamamoto, Bascom, and
Onipchenko
The first and fourth grounds of rejection are based on the above-stated
combination of references, in which the Examiner found:
Rosello teaches a bill validator comprising a front roller that is
mounted on a first shaft supported by a rotating holder, a
second shaft that is mounted on said holder and has end stems
extending from said holder and supports side rollers thereon
(see item 2 at Figures 3 and 4, and item 3 at Figure 5) for the
purpose of selectively conveying bills within said validator.
Ans. 6, 11-12. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in making this finding.
Reply Br. 3-6.
Rosello identifies items 2 and 3 as “banknote feed modules.” Col. 3,
l. 14. Banknote feed module 2 includes a separator roller 21 and a contra-
rotating roller 22 for extracting banknotes singularly from input hopper 20.
Col. 3, ll. 15-18; figs. 1, 3, 4. Rosello describes that the banknotes are then
guided into stacking wheels 23, which form a stack of the banknotes on a
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

7
hopper 24. Col. 3, ll. 18-20; figs. 1, 3, 4. Rosello discloses that as the
banknotes are fed to the stacking wheels 23, they pass detectors that check
the authenticity and size of the notes, and if each note is acceptable and the
user agrees with the total value of the batch displayed, then a feeder stacker
bar 25 is lowered thereby delivering the bundle of notes onto a feed tray 30.
Col. 3, ll. 19-34; figs. 1, 3, 4. Rosello describes that banknote feed module 3
feeds notes from the feed tray 30 to a second stacker area 31 using a stripper
roller 32, contra-rotating roller 33, stacking wheels 34, and stacking bar 35.
Col. 3, ll. 55-64; figs. 1, 3, 5. We do not find in Rosello disclosure of a
rotating holder supporting first and second shafts having mounted thereon a
front roller and side rollers, respectively. Further, as noted by Appellants
(Reply Br. 6), the Examiner’s rejection does not specify the components of
Rosello’s banknote feed modules 2 and 3 that correspond to the rotating
holder, first and second shafts, front roller, and side rollers. The Examiner’s
finding that Rosello discloses a rotating holder supporting first and second
shafts having mounted thereon a front roller and side rollers, respectively, is
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, we cannot
sustain the rejections of claims 11-14, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Menke, Kallin, Kato, Rosello, Yamamoto, Bascom, and
Onipchenko.
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

8
Rejection of claims 15, 16, and 19 over Menke, Bascom, and Yamamoto;
rejection of claim 17 over Menke, Bascom, Yamamoto, Kallin, and
Onipchenko; and rejection of claim 20 over Menke, Bascom, Yamamoto, and
Onipchenko
Appellants argue that claim 15 is patentable over the art of record
because “claim 15 calls for the same limitations discussed above with claim
11.” App. Br. 12. Appellants also argue that dependent claims 16, 17, 19,
and 20 are patentable based on their dependency from claim 15. App.
Br. 12-13.
With regard to claim 11, Appellants argued the limitation that “the
roller device comprises a front roller and a pair of side rollers which
respectively are in contact to the front and side belts mounted on the lower
casing ” “clearly sets forth the driving connection between side rollers 41, 42
and side belts 11, 12,” so that “the holder 43 can be rotated upward away
from front belt 9 by driving force transmitted from side belts 11, 12 through
side rollers 41, 42 and frictional force applied on holder 43 by elastic force
of spring 46.” App. Br. 11. Claim 15 does not recite a roller device with the
same level of detail as claim 11, e.g., it does not call for a front roller and a
pair of side rollers, a front belt and a pair of side belts, a rotatable, U-shaped
holder, first and second shafts, or springs. As such, this argument as to
patentability of claim 11 is not applicable to the subject matter of claim 15.
Appellants further describe that the “trigger sensor” detects an
advancing bill and the control device rotates the side rollers 41, 42 in the
adverse direction to deploy the bill in position for centering, and at the same
time the holder 43 is rotated away from the front belt 9 to release
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

9
engagement of the bill with the belts 9, 11, 12 for centering. Id. Claim 15
does not call for a trigger sensor as recited in claim 11. As such, this
argument as to patentability of claim 11 is not applicable to the subject
matter of claim 15.
Appellants further describe that centering motor 30 then moves pinch
jaws 15 to center the bill and the centering motor 30 can arrive at slippage
when warpage resistance of the centered bill is greater than an inherent
holding torque of centering motor 30, at which time conveyor device 8 is
operated to inwardly transport the bill along passageway 6. App. Br. 11-12.
Appellants argue that “none of the cited art disclose or suggest such
detection of a bill by a trigger sensor, driving connection between side
rollers 41, 42 and side belts 11, 12, slight return movement of bill for
centering movement, [and] timely operation of conveyor device after
slippage of centering motor.” App. Br. 12.
Claim 15 recites that “the conveyer device comprises belts, rollers in
contact to the belts, and a reversible convey motor for driving the belts.”
Claim 15 also calls for driving connection between the rollers and belts
(second-to-last clause), a slight return movement of the bill toward the inlet
to release the bill from the engagement with the belts and rollers (last
clause), and operation of the conveyer device after slippage of a stepper
motor used for centering (fourth clause from the end).
Menke discloses a transporting device 7 having two endless toothed
belts 8 extending parallel to one another at a certain distance and placed onto
pairs of reversal rollers 9 in the intake region 2 and onto non-illustrated drive
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

10
rollers which are coupled by way of a worm gear with a reversible rotation
drive motor. Col. 4, ll. 56-64; fig. 1. Menke also discloses four spring-
tensioned pressure rollers 15 which lie against the toothed belts 8. Col. 4, ll.
66-68; fig. 1. Menke discloses that the bank note 3 is gripped and carried by
pressure rollers 15 in cooperation with toothed belts 8. Col. 5, ll. 1-3.
Menke discloses that the shaft 16 of each pressure roller 15 is held in a
pivotally movable holder 17 and charged by a common wire spring 18 in the
direction toward toothed belts 8. Col. 5, ll. 3-7. Menke discloses opening
the channel halves 21 of the centering mechanism and raising the pressure
rollers 15 against the toothed belt 8, in order to permit return of an
unacceptable bank note. Col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 5.
As such, Menke discloses a transporting device 7 having driving
connection between pressure rollers 15 and toothed belts 8, and a reversible
convey motor for driving the toothed belts 8, as called for in claim 15.
Further, when the convey motor of Menke is driven in the adverse direction,
the belts 8 are rotated in the adverse direction to return the bill toward the
inlet and release the bill from engagement with the belts 8 and rollers 15
(i.e., the bill is released from engagement once the bill passes entirely
through the point of contact of the belts 8 and rollers 15 and rests in input
channel 2). When the bill is disposed in the input channel 2, it is located
between the channel halves 21 at which point the mechanism of Menke is
capable of operating the centering mechanism for the centering operation of
the bill.
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

11
The Examiner relied on Bascom to teach a torque-limited stepper
motor that can arrive at slippage/power swing damping when resistance of a
flexible sheet is greater than the inherent holding torque of the stepping
motor. Ans. 9. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding as to the
teaching of Bascom or the proposed modification of Menke’s centering
device to use the centering motor of Bascom. Rather, Appellants argue that
the prior art does not result in operation of the conveyor device after
slippage of a stepper motor used for centering. App. Br. 12.
Menke describes a sequence of movements of channel halves 21 and
transporting device 7 that entails completion of alignment of bank note 3 to
its longitudinal center prior to activation of transporting device 7. Col. 6,
ll. 59-66. As such, the device of Menke, as modified by the stepper motor of
Bascom, would result in a sequence of movements that include operation of
the transporting device 7 after slippage of the stepper motor used for
centering.1 As such, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of
error in the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Menke, Bascom, and Yamamoto. Claims 16 and 19 fall with claim 15.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). We sustain the rejections of claims
17 and 20 for the same reasons as discussed supra for claim 15.

1 The Examiner relied on Yamamoto to teach “a sheet conveying apparatus
comprising springs 12 that are would around the end stems of shaft 5 and
apply elastic force on holder 2 . . . for the purpose of selectively applying a
conveying force to a sheet being conveyed by said apparatus . . . and a front
roller 1 that is mounted on holder 2 which rotate together away from a
document being conveyed to release said document when said shaft is
rotated in a reverse direction.” Ans. 9.
Appeal 2010-001144
Application 10/950,251

12
CONCLUSIONS
Rosello does not disclose a bill validator comprising a front roller that
is supported on a first shaft mounted on a rotating holder and a second shaft
that is mounted on the holder and has end stems extending from the holder
and supporting side rollers thereon as called for in claim 11.
The combined teachings of Menke, Bascom, and Yamamoto would
result in a bill validator having a conveyer device as called for in claim 15.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15-17, 19,
and 20, and we REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-
14, 18, 21, and 22.
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

mls