Ex Parte Kuykendall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

11227861 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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. 11/227,861 09/15/2005 Julie L. Kuykendall 47171-00431USPT 8332 41230 7590 12/17/2012 CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 S. Riverside Plaza 16th Floor CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JULIE L. KUYKENDALL, JEFFREY G. KNOLL, ARTHUR J. LONG, and JOHN R. BLAKE ____________________ Appeal 2010-006490 Application 11/227,861 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006490 Application 11/227,861 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 5, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a system and method for automatically filling a coin cassette. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An automated coin tray refilling system comprising: a plurality of coin reservoirs; a plurality of coin dispensers for regulating the dispensing of coins from an associated one of the plurality of coin reservoirs; a collector point distribution member adapted to receive coins from each of the plurality of coin dispensers at one portion thereof and to output the coins at another portion thereof; an interface module having an input end disposed substantially adjacent the collector point distribution member output and having an output end for dispensing coins; a coin interface tray adapted to receive at least one coin tray; and at least one processor; wherein at least one of the interface module and coin interface tray comprises a drive system configured to move a respective one of the interface module and coin interface tray relative to the other one of the interface module and coin interface tray. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U .S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quattrini (US 2005/0176361 A1, pub. Aug. 11, 2005) and Adams (US 2004/0231956 A1, pub. Nov. 25, 2004). Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-006490 Application 11/227,861 3 Claims 3, 4, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quattrini, Adams and Cole (US 6,200,213 B1, iss. Mar. 13, 2001). Ans. 4. OPINION Each of the independent claims involved in this appeal, claims 1, 19 and 21, requires, inter alia, a drive system configured to move the interface module with respect to the coin tray or receiving area. The Examiner interprets Quattrini’s supporting collar 33, which slides under manual power across the top of Quattrini’s coin loader 20 to thereby move with respect to brackets 22, 39 of Quattrini’s coin receiving stand 21, as the recited drive system. Ans. 3, 5; see also Final rejection 4-5; Quattrini, para [0024]. In discussing the drive system on the interface module or coin tray, Appellants’ Specification sets forth some specific examples of drive systems and expressly contrasts such systems with those requiring manual operation. Spec. pp. 13-15, paras. [0037]-[0038], [0041]. Further, without the drive system having motive power, the claims would be incomplete as they would not define an “automated” system or “automatic” method. Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellants correctly contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited “drive system” as including Quattrini’s manually-operable supporting collar 33 simply because it allows for relative motion between the funnel 25 and brackets 22, 39 of the coin canister stand 21 is unreasonable because such an interpretation conflicts with the usage of the term in the Specification and in the context of the claims. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-4. We adopt the Appellants’ summation of the relevant and applicable law (App. Br.5-7) as our own. Appeal 2010-006490 Application 11/227,861 4 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED Klh