Ex Parte SanchesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201412004359 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICARDO F. SANCHES __________ Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, MARK NAGUMO, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s invention is directed to improvements in self-service terminals (Spec. 1:3–4). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A self-service terminal comprising: a Web client for connecting to a Web server remote from the terminal, the Web client being operable to render information to a customer of the Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 2 terminal and to parse commands received from the Web server to control a transaction flow of the self-service terminal; a display for presenting the rendered information to the customer; at least one customer interface device for interfacing with the customer under control of the Web client; and an error recovery agent executing on the terminal and operable to monitor the Web client to detect any failure of communication with the Web server, and in the event of a failure (i) to take control of the display and the at least one customer interface device from the Web client, (ii) to return inserted media to the customer (iii) to inform the customer about a resolution of any pending transaction when the failure occurred, and (iv) to inform the Web server of actions taken regarding the pending transaction. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Drummond et al. (US 2003/0126084 A1, published July 3, 2003) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 8,066,180 B2, patented Nov. 29, 2011). 2. Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Drummond. REJECTION (1) Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1 (App. Br. 8–10). ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err finding that the combined teachings of Drummond and Ishiguro would have suggested the subject matter of claim 1? We decide this issue in the negative. Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES Regarding rejection (1), the Examiner finds Drummond teaches the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an error recovery agent that monitors a Web client to detect any failure of communication with the Web server (Final Off. Act. 3–4). The Examiner finds that Ishiguro discloses an error recovery agent executing on the terminal (i.e., card reader) to monitor a web client to detect any failure of communication with the Web server (Final Off. Act. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to monitor a Web client for communication failures as taught by Ishiguro with the device as disclosed by Drummond in order to provide a card processor capable of autonomously determining to address and suppress damages to a minimum in case the transmission from a host system has stopped due to some problems (Final Off. Act. 5–6). Appellant argues that Ishiguro does not teach monitoring a Web client as claimed (App. Br. 9). Appellant contends that Ishiguro’s host 1 is not a Web server so clearly a Web client is not monitored. Id. Appellant contends that Ishiguro’s system is self-contained and thus does not provide a basis for modifying Drummond where a Web client accesses a remote Web server (App. Br. 9–10). Appellant argues that Drummond does not discuss the claimed arrangement where a Web server remote from the terminal controls a Web client to control a transaction flow of the self-service terminal (App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that “transaction flow” is defined in the Specification as “the sequence of screens and the logic that controls the next screen to be presented based on an event or a selection made by a customer at the current screen” (Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends that the transaction flow of the self-service terminal is controlled by a Web client Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 4 which parses commands it receives from a remote Web server. Id. Appellant argues that Drummond’s device includes steps taken to address whether communication has been established between a Web server and a Web client prior to transaction flow (Reply Br. 3). Appellant argues that Drummond does not detect the failure of communication with the Web server which includes mid-transaction flow failures as claimed. Id. Appellant contends that Drummond does not disclose the four actions recited in claim 1 as occurring in the event of failure of communication. Id. While Appellant and the Examiner agree that the Ishiguro does not disclose a Web client-Web server arrangement, Appellant’s arguments fail to address specifically the Examiner’s finding that combined teachings of Ishiguro and Drummond would have suggested the subject matter of claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Ishiguro teaches monitoring the signals received and processed by the client (i.e., the card processor) in order to detect communication failures (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that Ishiguro’s teachings in combination with Drummond’s teaching regarding Web client and Web server interactions would have suggested monitoring signals received and processed by a Web client to detect a communication failure to ensure smooth and error-free automated teller machine (ATM) transaction processes (Ans. 7). These findings are not specifically contested by Appellant (Reply Br. generally). Appellant’s arguments regarding Drummond’s failure to teach the claimed arrangement where a Web server remote from the terminal controls a Web client to control a transaction flow of the self-service terminal do not address or show error in the Examiner’s specific findings that Drummond teaches the claimed arrangement between Web client and Web server at Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 5 paragraphs [0088], [0089], [0092], and [0093] (Ans. 7–8). Likewise, Appellant does not address or show error in the Examiner’s specific findings that Drummond teaches the four required steps of the error recovery agent at paragraphs [0336] to [0339], [0138], and [0186] to [0188] (Final Off. Act. 4). Appellant’s argument that the claim is directed at addressing failures that may occur mid-transaction is incomplete because it is based on a too- narrow interpretation of the phrase “any pending transaction” (emphasis added). We construe the phrase “(iii) to inform the customer about a resolution of any pending transaction when the failure occurred” as not limited solely to an error recovery step in during a specific request for, e.g., a transfer of funds. Rather, the Specification discloses that when a fault is detected “pre-deposit” (i.e., before step 226 in Figure 4A) the error recovery agent implements the “pre-deposit recovery process 300” (Spec. 15:2–3). The Specification places no restriction on when a failure may occur within the meaning of the claims. Therefore, we find that failure may occur at any time including immediately after insertion of the ATM card step 204. The term “transaction” is not defined by Appellant in the Specification. But the claim plainly covers “any pending transaction.” Accordingly, it is reasonable in light of Appellant’s broad disclosure to find that “any pending transaction” includes a transaction started by insertion of the ATM card into the machine while waiting for the Web client to determine if the Web server is “awake” as in Drummond. In our view the claims do not exclude Drummond’s initial querying of the Web server to see if it is awake and cancelling the transaction if the sever is not available (i.e., awake) (Drummond para [0162], [0163]). Put another way, the unavailability of the Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 6 server is, or results in, a “failure of communication” between the local web client and the remote web server. As the Examiner finds, Drummond at paragraphs [0095] and [0096] presents a sequence of screens based upon selections made by the customer based upon the interaction of the Web client and Web server, which reasonably constitute transaction flow as that term is defined in the Specification (Final Off. Act. 4). Appellant has not disputed these findings of the Examiner. Regarding Rejection (2) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Drummond alone, Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 6 (App. Br. 10–11). Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 10 merely reference the arguments made regarding claim 6 without embellishment (App. Br. 11). Accordingly, we address Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 6 only. Appellant argues that Drummond fails to teach the combination of steps of: detecting a failure of communication with the remote Web server, accessing a local transaction flow, in response to the detected failure, and returning inserted media to the customer using the local transaction flow (App. Br. 10–11). Appellant contends that Drummond does not employ local transaction flow accessed in response to a detected failure and then returns inserted media to the user (id.). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s position in the Final Office Action that it is known to return ATM cards upon terminal failure or a lapse in time period fails to address the claimed subject matter (App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that a failure in communication with the remote server is what prompts the accessing of local transaction flows and return of the media to the user. Id. Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 7 The Examiner construes the step of “accessing a local transaction flow, in response to [a] detected failure” (emphasis added) as including any detected failure as the prompt for returning inserted media to the user (Ans. 9–10). The Examiner finds that “a detected failure” need not be the same as a failure in communication with the remote server because the claim language lacks antecedent basis with the failure detected in the “detecting step.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Drummond discloses local transaction flows, which the Examiner defines as “a transaction flow that is at least in part operated within the local computing environment” (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that Drummond teaches using local transaction flows (Ans. 9). Although Appellant contends that “a detected failure” in the accessing step of the claim refers to the failure in communication detected in the detecting step (Reply Br. 3–4), the Examiner’s claim construction is reasonable in light of the plain language of the claim. The recitation of “a detected failure” reasonably includes any detected failure and is not limited solely to the failure detected in the detecting step. Indeed, page 3, lines 3-5 of the Specification describes that “the failure may be due to a communications problem, information that cannot be rendered by the Web client, commands that cannot be parsed by the Web client, and the like.” So, the ʼ056 Specification teaches that detected failures are not limited solely to communications problems as Appellant contends. If Appellant meant “a detected failure” to refer to the failure in communication detected by the detecting step, adequately specific limiting language should have been included in the claims. Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 8 With this proper claim construction in mind, we find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 6 over Drummond. Moreover, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to return inserted media once a failure has been detected to be an obvious addition to the automated banking machine of Drummond (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that return of the card due to a communication failure is matter of “common sense” as the failure to return the card may strip the customer of a deposit, an identification card, or other media inserted into a self-service terminal (Ans. 10). Appellant does not respond to any of these particular findings or conclusions of the Examiner (Reply Br. generally). Appellant makes further general arguments that rejections (1) and (2) are based on hindsight, the prior art teaches away from the combination and the Examiner failed to address the claimed invention as a whole based (App. Br. 11–13). However, none of these general arguments are factually tied to any of the particular findings or conclusion of the Examiner with regard Drummond or Ishiguro or the the disclosures of Drummond or Ishiguro. In other words, Appellant’s mere attorney argument in the Appeal Brief does not take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–14. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. Appeal 2013-000056 Application 12/004,359 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation