11690852 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Stawar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 23, 2012

11690852 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/690,852 03/26/2007 Saul Stawar 4181-03300 4646 30652 7590 01/24/2012 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. 5601 GRANITE PARKWAY, SUITE 750 PLANO, TX 75024 EXAMINER KELLY, RAFFERTY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2876 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2012 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 SAUL STAWAR, CODY SINGLETON and BRET AYLOR ___________ Appeal 2009-014035 Application 11/690,852 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JASON V. MORGAN, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014035 Application 11/690,852 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a media enhanced shopping cart system that includes a shopping cart and a display component. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method, comprising: receiving a customer item; saving the customer item at an enterprise level for an enterprise, whereby the customer item is accessible from any retailer store associated with the enterprise; and upon identification by a customer at a particular retailer store associated with the enterprise, communicating the customer item to the customer on a media enhanced shopping cart in the particular retailer store, wherein the media enhanced shopping cart comprises rear, nose, and side sections, and wherein communicating the customer item comprises displaying the customer item at the nose of the media enhanced shopping cart. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swartz (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0219780) and Blaeuer (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0262385). ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-21; see also Reply Br. 6-17) that the combination of Swartz and Blaeuer would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “at the nose of the media enhanced shopping cart.” The Examiner found that the self scanning and checking unit 100 integral to the shopping cart handle of Blaeuer corresponds to the limitation Appeal 2009-014035 Application 11/690,852 3 “displaying the customer item at the nose of the media enhanced shopping cart.” (Ans. 3.) In particular, the Examiner found that “the term ‘nose’ is being interpreted as being the side of the cart with the handle and the term ‘rear’ is being interpreted as the side opposite this” (Ans. 3-4) and that “[t]he ‘forward’ end of a shopping cart is relative” (Ans. 9). We do not agree. Appellants’ Specification discloses “a shopping cart 10 having a basket 20 attached to a frame 30” such that the frame 30 includes “a base 35 having . . . [a] front base member 34 extending between the base side members 32, 33 at the front or nose 45 of the cart.” (¶ [0051]; figs. 1, 2 and 3A.) The basket 20 further includes “a video display 75 . . . attached or mounted . . . to the basket 20.” (¶ [0124].) “[T]he video display 75 is attached to the nose 45 of the cart 10” (¶ [0128]) such that “the video display 75 is not attached or mounted to the handle 22” (¶ [0124]). Furthermore, the Specification explains that “[i]n various embodiments, [the] nose of the cart 45 refers to the frontward most 1/3 of the basket 20.” (¶ [0128]). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the “nose end of the cart 45” is defined as the front end of the cart 10 opposite the handle 22. In addition, the “nose end of the cart 45” is defined relative to the handle 22, rather than the direction in which a user pushes the cart 10. Blaeuer relates to “a shopping cart console for the input and display of consumer product information such as pricing.” (¶ [0005].) A shopping cart 200 includes a self-scanning and checking unit 100 such that “[t]he unit 100 may be constructed as a one piece unit that may be made integral with the shopping cart handle.” (¶ [0023]; fig. 1.) Because the self-scanning and checking unit 100 of Blaeuer is integral with the shopping cart handle, Appeal 2009-014035 Application 11/690,852 4 rather than the front 20 of the shopping cart 200, Blaeuer does not teach or suggest that the unit 100 is “at the nose of the media enhanced shopping cart,” as recited in independent claim 1. In the alternative, the Examiner also found that “[e]ven if the Examiner’s interpretation of the word ‘nose’ is found to be unreasonable, it would be well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to simply move the display device from one end of the cart to the other.” (Ans. 10.) Again, we do not agree. Blaeuer further teaches that the unit 100 is for “self scanning and self checking out by purchasers in a store.” (¶ [0022].) However, the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the location of the unit 100 by placing the unit 100 at the front 20 of the shopping cart 200. The Examiner also does not sufficiently address how such a modification would affect a customer’s ability to self- scan and self-check goods purchased. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of Swartz and Blaeuer would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “at the nose of the media enhanced shopping cart.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-12 depend from independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims 2-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 13 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of Appeal 2009-014035 Application 11/690,852 5 claim 13, as well as claims 14-20, which depend from claim 13, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED tj