Giesecke & Devrient America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2021

2020000676 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2021)

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.
14/634,241 02/27/2015 Scott MARQUARDT 215664-0014-00-
US-251209
4545
55694 7590 06/10/2021
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP (DC)
1500 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1209
EXAMINER
ST CYR, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2021 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):
DBRIPDocket@faegredrinker.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT MARQUARDT and ROY DUNLAP
____________

Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 15–21, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Giesecke+Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to currency processing and account
reconciliation. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. Particularly, the described invention includes
reconciling a financial deposit where a denomination of a currency note
cannot be determined. Id. ¶ 77. For example, “if the intended amount to be
deposited is $500, but the total deposit received is $480, and one currency
note is too damaged to be read, the reconciling process determines that the
missing note is a $20 note and credit[s] the account with the additional $20,
to bring the deposit total to $500 and eliminate any account discrepancies.”
Id. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A system configured to process a plurality of sheets of
sheet material, wherein the plurality of sheets of sheet material
comprise currency objects, the system comprising:
a sheet-accepting device configured to receive the
plurality of sheets;
at least one sensor configured to read an identifier on
each sheet of the plurality of sheets, wherein one of said at least
one sensor is further configured to detect anomaly information
for the sheet, the anomaly information identifying an
anomalous characteristic of the sheet; and
a processing system comprising at least one processor
configured to determine, for each sheet of the plurality of
sheets, information about the sheet from the identifier on the
sheet, the information about the sheet including:
accounting information for the sheet, the
accounting information identifying an account associated with
the sheet; and
deposit information for the sheet, the deposit
information comprising information about a deposit including
the sheet, and the information about the deposit including a
value associated with the deposit,
wherein, for each sheet of the plurality of sheets, the
processing system is further configured to perform an
automatic reconciling process in response to detecting anomaly
Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241

3
information when the detected anomaly information identifies a
first anomalous characteristic of the sheet, the automatic
reconciling process comprising crediting the account
associated with the sheet based on the value associated with the
deposit including the sheet having the identified anomalous
characteristic when the first anomalous characteristic of the
sheet prevents the processing system from determining the
value of the sheet.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to indicate a disputed
recitation).
Claim 15 recites a computer-readable medium storing instructions to
control a process for identifying currency sheets and reconciling accounts.
Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 15.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 7, 15–18, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jones.2
II. Claims 1–4, 7, 15–18, and 203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Mastie.4
III. Claim 5, 6, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jones.

2 US 8,627,939 B1, issued January 14, 2014.
3 The Examiner mistakenly includes canceled claims 8–11 in the statement
of rejection for anticipation by Mastie. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner also
mistakenly includes canceled claims 12 and 13 in the statement of rejection
for obviousness over Jones. Id. at 6.
4 US 2004/0222283 A1, published November 11, 2004.
Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241

4
OPINION
Rejection I: anticipation by Jones
With regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 15–18, 20,
21, and 23 over Jones, Appellant argues claims 1 and 15 together, focusing
on features recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–8. We address Appellant’s
arguments regarding claim 1 below. Claims 2–4, 7, 15–18, 20, 21, and 23
stand or fall with claim 1.
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds
Jones describes all of the elements recited in claim 1, including a processor
configured to credit a customer account when an anomaly prevents value
determination of a given currency sheet. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Jones 43:1–
12). See also Ans. 7–8 (citing Jones columns 58, 67).
Appellant argues Jones describes only a manual process of account
reconciliation. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Jones 43:1–12); Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant also argues Jones deals with counterfeit currency which,
according to Appellant, would not involve currency notes for which a value
cannot be determined. Id. at 7 (“Because counterfeit bills are meant to pass
as legitimate currency, nothing in Jones suggests that a value determination
of the counterfeit, suspect bills is prevented.”). Id. at 7.
Jones describes a currency processing system which includes, inter
alia, a controller or processor coupled to an image scanner, a memory, and a
communications port or network device. Jones 17:6–18:3. Jones describes
generating a data file associated with each document, id. 18:65–19:3. Data
fields include flag criteria where the processing system identifies suspect
currency, such as missing denomination data. Id. 42:31–52 (“The flag
criteria can include, but are not limited to, no-call denomination.”).
Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241

5
Appellant is correct that Jones teaches an embodiment in which a user
initiates account reconciliation in response to processor identification of a
suspect currency bill. See Jones 43:5–8 (“In the case of the currency bill
being a suspect, the operator can then initiate a charge-back if credit was
already given for the deposit of the currency bill via the document
processing system.”). However, Jones also describes the processing system
being configured “to automatically transmit a charge-back instruction.” Id.
67:30–34. As the foregoing description in Jones demonstrates, Appellant’s
arguments that Jones describes only manual account reconciliation, and that
Jones fails to accommodate currency of undetermined denomination, are
incorrect.
Moreover, we are not persuaded claim 1 precludes the manual
reconciliation embodiment of Jones. Jones describes a configuration in
which an operator reviews a processor-generated image of a no-call
denomination currency bill, and selects the proper determination, which
selection causes the controller to update and/or edit a record associated with
the no-call denomination bill. Jones 106:58–107:7. Appellant does not
persuasively explain why the language, “configured to perform an automatic
reconciling process in response to detecting anomaly information” in claim 1
necessarily precludes a configuration, such as in Jones, in which an
automatic reconciling process is performed in response to a user input which
in turn is performed in response to a system detection of anomaly
information.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not identify reversible error
in the Examiner’s anticipation finding. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241

6
rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 15–18, 20, 21, and 23 as anticipated by Jones is
sustained.

Rejection II: anticipation by Mastie
In support of the Examiner’s rejection over Mastie, the Examiner
finds Mastie describes a “point-of-sale terminal or ATM.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner states the reconciling process features specified in each of the
independent claims, “are implicitly disclosed and are considered to be
normal modes of operation of an ATM.” Id. at 5–6. However, as Appellant
correctly points out, Appeal Br. 9, the Examiner does not provide any
rationale or evidence to substantiate the finding that Mastie implicitly
describes account reconciliation, much less a system “configured to perform
an automatic reconciling process in response to detecting anomaly
information” where the “anomalous characteristic of the sheet prevents the
processing system from determining the value of the sheet” as is recited in
claim 1. The Examiner’s statement that Mastie does not require
identification of bill denomination for the reconciling process, Ans. 8, does
not cure that deficiency.
Absent identification of evidence or technical reasoning sufficient to
support the above-mentioned finding, the Examiner’s anticipation
determination is conclusory. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1–4, 7–11, 15–18, and 20 as anticipated by Mastie.

Rejection III
Appellant does not separately argue Rejection III apart from reliance
on the arguments presented in connection with Rejection I. As such,
Appeal 2020-000676
Application 14/634,241

7
Appellant does not identify reversible error. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 15–21, and 23 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 15–
18, 20, 21,
23
102(a)(2) Jones 1–4, 7, 15–
18, 20, 21,
23

1–4, 7, 15–
18, 20
102(a)(2) Mastie 1–4, 7, 15–
18, 20
5, 6, 19 103 Jones 5, 6, 19
Overall
outcome
1–7, 15–21,
23

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).

AFFIRMED