Ex Parte Allan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

12861250 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
12/861,250 08/23/2010 Douglas Allan 10-277 1670
107681 7590 12/02/2016
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
EXAMINER
SHEIKH, ASFAND M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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 DOUGLAS ALLAN
Appeal 2014-006844
Application 12/861,250
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-006844
Application 12/861,250
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a transaction system
that combines battery charging with other services (Spec., para. 4). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A transaction system comprising:
a vehicle battery charging system;
a self-service computer including
a display;
an input device;
a payment peripheral for making payment at the
transaction system;
a receipt printer; and
a processor for displaying choices for a battery
charging service and at least one non-parking service requiring
payment via the display, for recording a user selection of the
battery charging service and the at least one non-parking service
via the input device, for obtaining payment for the battery
charging service via the payment peripheral, for operating the
vehicle battery charging system to apply charging current to a
vehicle battery, for printing a transaction receipt for the battery
charging service and for facilitating payment via the payment
peripheral and completion of the at least one non-parking service,
and printing a transaction receipt for the at least one non-parking
service.
THE REFERENCES
Tseng US 5,563,491
Summers US 6,402,030 B1
Lindahl US 7,900,847 B2
Hafiier US 7,991,665 B2
Oct. 8, 1996
June 11, 2002
Mar. 8,2011
Aug. 2,2011
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
2
Appeal 2014-006844
Application 12/861,250
1. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tseng, Hafner, Summers, and Lindahl.
2. Claims 3—8, 11, and 15—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tseng, Hafner, Summers, Lindahl, and
Official Notice.
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tseng, Hafner, and Summers.
4. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tseng, Hafner, Summers, and Official Notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose the system including a processor for
for printing a transaction receipt for the battery charging service
and for facilitating payment via the payment peripheral and
completion of the at least one non-parking service, and printing
a transaction receipt for the at least one non-parking service.
(App. Br. 11, 12).
In contrast the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown by Tseng at column 2, lines 54—67, column 3, lines
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-006844
Application 12/861,250
19-57, Haftier at column 8, lines 35—44, column 11, lines 5—25, column 12,
lines 21—39, Summers at Figure 7, column 1, line 40 to column 2, line 17,
and Lindahl at Figures 3—5 (Ans. 3—6).
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s arguments attack references
individually, when the rejections are based on a combination of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references”). Here, the elements of
the argued claim limitations are shown by the cited prior art. Tseng at
column 2, lines 54—67 discloses a battery charging station combined with a
parking meter; and Hafner at column 8, lines 35—44 discloses offering a free
vehicle charge if something else is purchased from a vendor. Summers at
Figure 7 discloses the use of multiple receipts for each of multiple services;
and Lindahl at Figures 3—5 discloses the use of multiple receipts by the use
of gift receipts. Here, the cited prior art discloses the elements of the argued
claim limitations.
The Appellant has also argued that the combination of references
would not have been obvious (App. Br. 8, 9). We agree with the Examiner’s
determination that the cited combination of record in the rejection would
have been obvious. Here, the rejection of record would have been an
obvious, predictable combination of familiar elements for the benefit of their
respective functions as outlined in the rejection of record. For these reasons
the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
With regards to claim 2, the Appellant argued that the cited prior art
fails to disclose the cited providing of “tickets” for the non-parking service
(App. Br. 12). The Examiner has cited to Summers’s voucher for the car
4
Appeal 2014-006844
Application 12/861,250
wash at Figure 9 as being a “ticket,” and we agree that this citation meets the
argued claim limitation under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is sustained.
The Appellant has argued that the use of Official Notice for a
station/kiosk that provides: directions to another station/kiosk that gives a
similar service; the ability to pay bills (e.g., banking, ATM), entertainment
(e.g., news, weather); advertisements; internet access, and the ability to
charge vehicles was improperly taken (App. Br. 12, 13). We disagree with
this contention, as these are all taken to be conventional uses for a kiosk, or
certainly obvious to place in a kiosk in the cited combination of record in the
rejection.
The Appellant has provided the same arguments for the remaining
claims and the rejections of these claims is sustained as well for the same
reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are sustained.
5
Appeal 2014-006844
Application 12/861,250
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6