Kemmerling, Thomas

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

15212727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
15/212,727 07/18/2016 Thomas Kemmerling 025018-0055 9905
115462 7590 01/28/2020
Diebold, Incorporated
c/o Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, LPA
220 Market Avenue, South, Suite 1000
Canton, OH 44702
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ip@bmsa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS KEMMERLING
____________

Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–5, 9, and 11–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Wincor Nixdorf International GmbH as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “a drum storage module for receiving
notes of value, which comprises a winding drum onto which notes of value
are windable so as to be received between at least two foil belts.” Spec. ¶ 1.
The sole independent claim on appeal, claim 1, which is reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A drum storage module for receiving notes of value,
comprising:
a winding drum having a longitudinal axis and on which the
notes of value are windable so as to be received between at least
two foil belts;
a first sensor comprising a light source and a light receiver,
wherein the light source and the light receiver are arranged so
that a beam path from the light source to the light receiver
extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the winding drum;
wherein the drum storage module comprises a housing
enclosing the winding drum;
wherein the light source and the light receiver are mounted
directly on the housing enclosing the winding drum; and
wherein a first recess in the housing enclosing the winding
drum receives the light source and a second recess in the housing
enclosing the winding drum receives the light receiver, the first
and second recesses centered on the beam path and thereby
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the winding drum.

Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Chang US 8,684,156 B1 Apr. 1, 2014
Robinson US 2012/0103754 A1 May 3, 2012
Saltsov US 2003/0116400 A1 June 26, 2003
Ohara US 2014/0262678 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–5, 9, and 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Saltsov, Robinson, and Chang.
2. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Saltsov, Robinson, Chang, and Ohara.
OPINION
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Saltsov
discloses a drum storage module (i.e., banknote accumulator 2), including a
sensor comprising a light source and a light receiver (i.e., light transmitter
173, lens of light transmitter 175) “for determining the reaching and/or
leaving of the maximum admissible filling level of notes of value in the
drum storage module,” wherein the sensor’s beam path extends as claimed.
Final Act. 2–3 (citing, e.g., Saltsov ¶¶ 65, 66, Figs. 1, 12, 13); see e.g.,
Saltsov ¶¶ 65, 66 (disclosing “sensing arrangement 171 for determining
when the accumulator is essential[ly] full,” including “light transmitter 173”
and “[a] light receiver is positioned on the opposite side of the accumulator
[for] receiv[ing] [a] beam of light when the stored banknotes do not interrupt
Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
4
the beam”). The Examiner also finds that Saltsov discloses a storage module
housing (i.e., hinged panel 8, panel 10, flanged end 11 of panel 10). Final
Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Saltsov does not disclose, inter alia, first and
second recesses in a housing enclosing the winding drum for receiving the
light source and light receiver, respectively, as required by claim 1, and the
Examiner relies on Chang for teaching a light emitter 241 and a light
receiver (i.e., light sensor 242) mounted directly on a housing 1, “via
holding base [21].” Final Act. 4 (citing Chang, Figs. 2, 3, 5); see also Chang
3:53–62. The Examiner finds that Chang discloses a first recess (i.e.,
locating groove 2131) in holder base 21 that receives the light emitter 242
and a second recess (i.e., locating groove 2131) in holder base 21 that
receives the light sensor 242. Id. (citing Chang, Fig. 5); see also Ans. 4, 11
(relying on Chang’s Figures 5 and 6).
To the extent the Examiner’s Answer appears to alter the Examiner’s
reliance on Chang’s locating grooves 2131 for disclosing the claimed
recesses, by more generally stating that “Chang expressly teaches [that light
emitter and receiver 241, 242] are situated in recesses that are located in the
upper and lower walls of [bill passage] 20,” we determine that such a
general statement is too imprecise to inform Appellant as to whether the
Examiner is relying on structures in Chang (i.e., holder unit 21) other than
locating grooves 2131 for disclosing recesses. See Ans. 13 (citing Chang
3:53–4:30, Figs. 5, 6). As another example, the Examiner finds that
Chang’s figures and drawings are sufficient to convey what one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be first and second
recesses, i.e., a hole, aperture, recess, indentation or groove,
located on two opposing walls of a housing, i.e., the two
Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
5
opposing walls of Chang’s bill pathway, in which is placed a
light emitter on one side and a light receiver on the other.
Id. at 14. Again, we determine it is unclear which structures the Examiner is
relying on as presenting recesses in the two opposing walls of Chang’s bill
pathway.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan
to have provided the recesses in the housing to accommodate the
light emitter and light receiver, as taught by Chang, in Saltsov’s
winding drum assembly, for the purpose of ensuring the entire
sensor assembly is secured in a structurally sound assembly that
also seals the light emitter and light receiver from dust and
debris.
Final Act. 5. In support, the Examiner determines that “Chang’s
holes/recesses [(i.e., through holes 2430)] can be seen to entirely surround
and support each of [light emitter and receiver 241, 242].” Ans. 18; see also
Ans. 20 (citing Chang 2:45–55 (discussing the benefits of dust protection for
sensing and privacy filter elements), 4:21–22). The Examiner also reasons
that “Chang’s disclosed recesses represent use of known structural mounting
enhancement techniques to improve the similar light receiver/light emitter
sensor pair in Saltsov’s device in the same way.” Ans. 18.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the teachings of Saltsov and Chang
“would [not] lead to mounting the light receiver and emitter in recesses in
the housing wall,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). Rather,
“the resulting modification would be to include a dust cover on the sensing
arrangement 171.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also submits that the Examiner
failed to support the finding that “light emitters 241 and light sensors 242 are
also in the locating groove 2131.” Reply Br. 6; see also id. at 7(arguing that
Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
6
“Chang does not disclose that the light sensors 242 or light emitters 241 are
received in through hole 2430 or in the locating groove 2131” and also that
“[whether] through hole 2430 and/or the locating groove 2131 may be
centered on the beam path is not relevant to whether or not the light sensors
242 or light emitters 241 are received in recesses centered on the beam
path”).
Chang also discloses that
holder base 21 of the bill-receiving unit 2 comprises two light
transmissive portions 213 disposed at opposing top and bottom
sides of the bill passage 20 corresponding to the recognition
circuit assembly 24, a locating groove 2131 extending around
each light transmissive portion 213, a privacy filter 3 mounted
with a dust cover 214 in each locating groove 2131 over the
respective light transmissive portion 213. . . . Further, each lens
holder 243 comprises a through hole 2430 corresponding to one
light sensor 242, and a lens set 2431 mounted in the through hole
2430.
Chang 4:1–14. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the
Examiner’s finding that locating grooves 2131 and through holes 2430 are
recesses that receive the light source or light emitter; rather, Chang discloses
that locating groove 2131 receives a privacy filter 3 and dust cover 214 and
through hole 2430 corresponds to a light sensor to function as a beam path.
Even if locating groove 2131 is considered to be a recess in a housing
such as holding base 21, it does not “receive the light source” as recited in
claim 1. Instead, privacy filter 3 and dust cover 214 are mounted in recess
or locating groove 2131 as illustrated in Figure 6 of Chang. Id. at 4:1–14.
In addition, light emitters 241 and light sensors 242 are installed in circuit
boards 221 of control module 22 (id. at 3:53–63) rather than in holder base
Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
7
21. Therefore, light emitters 241 and light sensors 242 are not “mounted
directly on the housing enclosing the winding drum” as recited in claim 1.
Nor has the Examiner explained how these elements are mounted on a
housing such as holding base 21, which the Examiner treats as Chang’s
housing. See Final Act. 4 (finding holding base 21 is the housing). Chang
also discloses light emitters 241 and light sensors mounted in lens holders
243 (id. at 3:60–62, 4:1–15) rather than in either locating groove 2131 or a
recess in holding base 21. Thus, we agree with Appellant that Chang does
not teach light emitters and sensors in recesses in a housing such as holding
base 21 (Appeal Br. 9–11), and we are not persuaded a skilled artisan would
have been motivated to place Saltov’s sensors in a recess of Saltov’s housing
as the Examiner proposes to do based on Chang’s teachings (Final Act. 5)
when Chang places privacy filter 3 and dust cover 214 in a housing recess
and light sources and light receivers on circuit boards 221 and in holders 243
that are themselves attached to a base member 212 of holder base 21. See
Chang, 3:27–67 (describing housing 1 as comprising holder base 21 with
first and second base members 211, 212 that form a bill passage 20 with
control module 22 and recognition circuit assembly 24 mounted in top and
bottom sides of bill passage 20 with light emitters 241 and light sensors 242
installed in respective circuit boards 221 on either side of bill passage 20),
Figs. 2, 5, 6.
Further, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that a
modification of Saltsov, in view of Chang, would not result in the claimed
subject matter. Rather, one skilled in the art would be led to include a bill-
receiving unit comprising a holder base within the housing of Saltsov,
whereby the sensors are combined with privacy filters having dust covers.
Appeal 2019-003037
Application 15/212,727
8
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2–5, 9, and 11–13 depending therefrom.

Rejection II
The Examiner’s findings relative to dependent claims 14 and 15 do
not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 supra, from
which claims 14 and 15 depend. Accordingly, for essentially the same
reasons as set forth supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 14 and 15.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9, 11–
13
103 Saltsov, Robinson,
Chang
1–5, 9, 11–
13
14, 15 103 Saltsov, Robinson,
Chang, Ohara
14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 9, 11–
15
REVERSED