Günter Baitz et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

14596534 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
14/596,534 01/14/2015 Günter BAITZ 025018-0021 1509
115462 7590 09/23/2019
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
09/23/2019 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 GÜNTER BAITZ and THOMAS BLECHERT
____________________
Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5–20.2 An oral hearing was held on
September 10, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Wincor
Nixdorf International GmbH. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claims 2 and 5–15 depend from
claim 1. Claims 17–20 depend from claim 16. Claim 16 is reproduced
below.
16. A device for handling notes of value, the device
comprising:
a head module including a transport unit and a drive unit
for driving the transport unit, the transport unit is configured to
transport notes of value to and from the safe module;
a safe configured to accommodate at least one cash box
for storing notes of value, the safe includes a wall defining an
opening through which notes of value can pass into and out of
the safe;
an intermediate module within the opening of safe, the
intermediate module including gear wheels and gear wheel
mounts, the gear wheel mounts are configured to support the
gear wheels in at least:
a first gear orientation in which the gear wheels
provide a first gear train of a first length to span the opening
having a first thickness; and
a second gear orientation in which the gear wheels
provide a second gear train of a second length greater than the
first length to span the opening having a second thickness
greater than the first thickness;
a first gear interface of the head module configured to
apply drive force generated by the drive unit to the intermediate
module; and
a second gear interface of the safe or the cash box, the
second gear interface configured to apply the drive force from
the intermediate module to a cash box mechanism or transport
elements of the safe;
wherein the intermediate module mechanically connects
the first gear interface to the second gear interface.

Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534

3
REJECTIONS
References Basis Claims
Furuichi,3 Nireki,4 and Catteneo5 § 103 1, 2, 5–13, and 16–20
Furuichi, Nireki, Catteneo, and
Murakami6
§ 103 14
Furuichi, Nireki, Catteneo, and Wendell7 § 103 15

OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5–13, and 16–20 as a group, specifically
addressing claim 16. Appeal Br. 5–12. We select claim 16 as
representative. Claims 1, 2, 5–13, and 17–20 stand or fall with claim 16.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not argue claims 14 and 15
separately, which each depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner finds that Furuichi teaches a number of the features
recited in claim 16. Final Act. 3–9.8 The Examiner acknowledges that
“Furuichi does not expressly teach the drive train of the intermediate unit.”
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Furuichi teaches an
intermediate module (50) . . . adaptable to at least two different
wall thicknesses (T49), as mentioned at paragraph 90, of the
wall so that at least for these two wall thicknesses it can
transmit the drive force from the drive unit to the cash box

3 W0 2012/132121 A1, published Oct. 4, 2012. The Examiner cites to US
2013/0247799 A1 when referring to Furuichi. Final Act. 3.
4 US 2011/0128526 A1, published June 2, 1011.
5 EP 0 671 538 A1, published Sept. 13, 1995.
6 US 8,049,597 B1, issued Nov. 1, 2011.
7 US 2005/0006197 A1, published Jan. 13, 2005.
8 The Examiner refers to the findings and rationale regarding claim 1, when
rejecting claim 16. Final Act. 12.
Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534

4
mechanism and/or the transport elements of the safe module, as
mentioned at paragraphs 28, 39, noting also casing thickness
setting section (2d) and casing thickness data (3b), as illustrated
at figure 2 and paragraphs 68 and 71, which enables the
intermediate module to become adapted to at least two different
wall thicknesses, the intermediate module can transmit the drive
force from the drive unit to the cash box mechanism and/or the
transport elements of the safe module.
Id.
Appellant does not dispute this finding, that Furuichi’s intermediate
module 50 is adaptable to span at least two different wall thicknesses, in the
Appeal Brief. Rather, in the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends that “[t]here
is thus no transfer of drive force across the passing unit 50 [in Furuichi],
which is in contrast to Applicant’s claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 7–8
(emphasis omitted). This does not identify error in the rejection because the
Examiner proposes modifying Furuichi to provide a transfer of drive force.
Indeed, in the Appeal Brief, Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner
relies on Nireki for this feature. See id. at 8 (“For Applicant’s claimed
intermediate module and first and second gear interfaces, the Examiner
relied on the Nireki reference.”).
The Examiner finds that Nireki teaches a geared drive train including
“drive unit (21) . . . construed as an intermediate module for transmitting the
drive force of the drive unit,” “head module (21, 21a, 124) . . . includ[ing] a
first interface, i.e., the drive train (21) located in the upper portion/main
body (2) . . . for applying the drive force from the drive unit (20) upon the
intermediate module,” and “cash box or . . . . safe module (100) includ[ing] a
second interface (124) for applying the drive force from the intermediate
module upon the cashbox mechanism or the transport elements of the safe
module.” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner explains that “the intermediate
Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534

5
module mechanically connects the two interfaces with one another,” and “in
a first state the intermediate module spans a first distance between the first
interface and the second interface.” Id. at 5. The Examiner explains that it
would have been obvious to have provided Furuichi’s intermediate module
with a geared drive train “for the purpose of transmitting force to the
intermediate unit conveyor portion as well as transmitting force to the
banknote transport unit of the cash box, thus reducing the number of motors
required to operate Furuichi’s device for handling notes of value.” Id. at 6.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant alleges that “[t]he Nireki reference
fails to disclose or suggest Applicant’s claimed intermediate module, or first
and second gear interfaces,” but does not dispute the Examiner’s findings
regarding Nireki noted above, in any meaningful way. Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). Rather, Appellant discusses the teachings of Nireki
without tying those teachings to any particular claim limitation or alleged
deficiency in the Examiner’s findings, which rely upon Nireki as disclosing
a geared drive train to transfer force from a drive unit outside of a safe to a
driven unit inside of the safe. Id.
The Examiner further explains that
Furuichi teaches wherein in a first state, i.e., construed as a first
safe plate thickness, the intermediate module spans a first
distance between the first interface and the second interface
and, in a second state, i.e., a second safe plate thick[ne]ss, it
spans a second distance between the first and second interface
that is different from the first distance, noting that it would have
been obvious to have provided different gear diameters and/or
to have located the gear axles in different positions based upon
the different thicknesses as a matter of design choice based
upon the particular thickness required to be traversed by the
intermediate module.
Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534

6
Final Act. 7–8. That is, the Examiner finds that because Furuichi, itself,
teaches spanning different thicknesses, when modifying Furuichi to provide
a gear arrangement as explained above, one skilled in the art would have
provided different gear diameters and/or gear placements to accommodate
that same objective when the system employed a geared drive train.
Again, in its Appeal Brief, Appellant does not dispute this finding or
reasoning.
As for the recitation in claim 16 that “the intermediate module
includ[es] . . . gear wheel mounts [that] are configured to support the gear
wheels” in the first and second orientations, the Examiner finds that
Cattaneo teaches a first state, construed as a first configuration
and a second state, construed as a second [configuration], in
which holes for the first state in a first hole pattern and in which
holes for the second state in a second hole pattern are both
present on a foundation bracket/frame/housing for the purpose
of creating a single standard housing/frame thus engendering
economy of parts and therefore cost and inventory required in
the manufacturing assembly process.
Final Act. 8. The Examiner explains that “Cattaneo teaches a universal
housing/frame (1) having three sets of holes (4, 5, 6) which enables
attachment to plural motor configurations.” Id. The Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious to have further modified Furuichi to have “two
separate sets of holes for two separate configurations of gear sets and their
axles as taught by Cattaneo . . . for the purpose of reducing the number of
parts required for assembly.” Id. at 9.
With respect to Cattaneo, the Appeal Brief, again, fails to address the
findings or reasoning provided by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 9, 11–12
(discussing teachings of Cattaneo without tying that discussion to any
Appeal 2018-001441
Application 14/596,534

7
particular alleged Examiner error, and simply alleging impermissible
hindsight without further explanation).
Appellant additionally contends that the proposed modifications
“would render Furuichi inoperable for its intended use.” Appeal Br. 10–11
(emphasis omitted). That contention, however, concerns the different
manner in which the drive mechanism would operate with gears instead of
individual drive motors, rather than supporting a position that Furuichi
would be inoperable when modified.
Appellant additionally notes that “Applicant is permissibly using
functional language, including ‘configured to,’ to impart structural
limitations,” but fails to identify any particular structure missing from the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims. Appeal Br. 11.
Based on the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief, and as
explained above, the basis for the Examiner’s rejection set forth in the Final
Action is essentially unrebutted. Accordingly, we are not apprised of
Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and
5–20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–20 is
AFFIRMED.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED