Ex Parte 7191915 et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2013

95000607 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,607 01/31/2011 7191915 CRAN01-00525 2902
42624 7590 02/27/2017
DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
FETSUGA, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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
____________________

CRANE CO.
Requester
v.
Patent of AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING SYSTEMS,
INC.
Appellant, Patent Owner
____________________

Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent US 7,191,915
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DANIEL S. SONG and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge SONG.

Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge McCARTHY.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

2
In the Request for Rehearing (hereinafter “Rehr’g Req.”), the Patent
Owner requests reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 of our Decision
mailed September 27, 2013 (hereinafter “Original Decision” or “Orig.
Dec.”) affirming Rejections A and C of claims 1–46 (Orig. Dec. 36).
Rejection A was based on the combination of Schuller and Dragne, while
Rejection C was based on the combination of Schuller, Levasseur, Dragne,
and Endl (Orig. Dec. 5). The Patent Owner asserts that in the Original
Decision, we misapprehended or overlooked various issues, and requests
modification of the Original Decision.
In disagreeing with the findings and conclusions of the Board as set
forth in the Original Decision, many of the arguments submitted in the
Request for Rehearing reiterate the Patent Owner’s arguments submitted in
its Appeal Brief and Rebuttal Brief. Because such arguments have been
already sufficiently addressed in the Original Decision, we refer to relevant
portions thereof. However, in view of the Rehearing Request, we further
clarify certain aspects of the Original Decision.
Correspondingly, we grant the Request to the extent that we consider
the Patent Owner’s arguments infra, but DENY the request to modify our
Original Decision.

Preliminary Issue
We initially note that in addition to the Request for Rehearing, the
Patent Owner has filed a SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION on May 1, 2015, again requesting
the Board to terminate the present inter partes reexamination proceeding,
and noting Federal Circuit’s decision in Automated Merchandising Systems,
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

3
Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, in which the court found the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office’s refusal to terminate the proceedings was not a final
agency action. Automated Merchandising Syst., 782 F.3d 1376, 1380–82
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
However, as noted in the Original Decision, “[t]he Patent Owner has
not made any showing that the denial of the request is appealable to the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” (Orig. Dec. 2, fn. 2). In addition, as also
noted in the Original Decision, “[t]he Patent Owner’s request already has
been addressed in a ‘Decision on Petition under 37 C.F.R. §1.181(a)
Requesting Vacatur of the Proceedings’ Mailed April 14, 2011.” (Orig. Dec.
2, fn. 2). In this regard, the Patent Owner further requested a reconsideration
of this Decision on Petition, the requested reconsideration having been
denied in the Decision on Request for Reconsideration of Renewed Petition
to Terminate Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding, mailed October 25,
2013, which resulted in the decision in Automated Merchandising Systems.
While the Federal Circuit has determined that the decision denying the
Patent Owner’s requested relief is not final agency action, the substance of
the request has been addressed by the Patent Office. Thus, we decline to
discuss this issue any further.

Issue 1
The Patent Owner argues that the Original Decision improperly relies
on “official notice” to establish a contested fact, and to supply the
motivation to combine references (Rehr’g Req. 2). Specifically, the Patent
Owner asserts that in Finding 13, “the Board took Official Notice that
electronic systems were less prone to wear and failure than mechanical
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

4
systems based on the grounds that moving parts are subject to friction,” and
that this finding provided the basis upon which the optical sensor of Dragne
or Levasseur was substituted into the vending machine of Schuller (Rehr’g
Req. 2–3). The Patent Owner also asserts that the Board took official notice
that “impact sensors were known to suffer from insufficient sensitivity to
light or heavy products and the deformation of the mechanical sensor.”
(Rehr’g Req. 3).
The Patent Owner mischaracterizes the Original Decision. The Board
did not enter a new fact finding or take official notice in Finding 13, but
instead, reproduced what the Examiner stated in the Answer, as well as the
Examiner’s other findings set forth in the Action Closing Prosecution
consistent therewith (Orig. Dec. 11). The Board did agree with the
Examiner’s findings already of record in stating “[]the Examiner’s adoption
of the proposed finding is a reasonable exercise of official notice, since the
fact that interacting moving parts are subject to frictional wear is susceptible
of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.” (Id.).
Thus, the Board merely understood the Examiner’s finding as to interacting
moving parts being subject to frictional wear to be a reasonable exercise of
official notice because friction causing wear in interacting moving parts is
well-known.
Similarly, the Board did not enter a new fact finding or take official
notice in Finding 14, but instead, reproduced the Requester’s proposed
finding adopted by the Examiner, which was that mechanical sensing
mechanisms such as that disclosed in Schuller lack sensitivity range to allow
detection of light-weight products as well as heavy products (Orig. Dec. at
11–12). The Board did find that these findings were consistent with the
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

5
statements of the Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. McAlexander (id. at 12) who
declared that, as to the mechanical sensing system disclosed in Schuller:
Lighter items (e.g., chewing gum, mints, life-savers, etc) would
not have sufficient weight to displace fingers 219 and
associated bar 217 and cause the actuation of the buttons of the
two switches 227 and 229, as described by the Schuller Patent.
The reliability of vending lighter items would be, at best,
inconsistent. Further, smaller sized items such as chewing
gum, mints, life-savers, etc[.] would be prone to fall between
adjacent fingers 219 and completely avoid being detected.
Selecting such items of a size smaller than “Cartons of
Cigarettes or Like Packages” could cause the vending of
multiple items before a vended item would contact and displace
fingers 219.
(Decl. McAlexander 8, emphasis added).
Substantively, based on the above-noted erroneous assertions with
respect to the Original Decision, the Patent Owner argues that:
Even if friction and wear were an obvious problem with the
Schuller device, taking official notice that electronic sensors are
preferable to mechanical sensors [] is baseless. Not only is that
assertion wrong, it is a fact in dispute in this case. Both types
of sensors have their applications and their deficiencies. If
electronic sensors are better than mechanical sensor, as the
Board’s official notice purports, it fails to explain why
mechanical sensors were used in the first place or why they
continue to be used in many applications.
(Rehr’g Req. 3–4).
However, the Patent Owner again mischaracterizes the Original
Decision in that there is no “official notice that electronic sensors are
preferable to mechanical sensors,” or that electronic sensors are “better than
mechanical sensor” as asserted (id.; see also id. at 5). In this regard, the
Patent Owner appears to mischaracterize the rejection at hand.
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

6
The Examiner’s rejection, and the Board’s affirmance thereof in the
Original Decision, are principally based on substitution of a mechanical
sensing system with an optical sensing system to allow for greater sensitivity
range so also to allow accurate detection of light-weight products, and/or to
avoid “wear and potential failure due to interaction between [] parts (e.g.
friction).” (Orig. Dec. 25; see also id. at 11–12, 18; FF 13, 14, 35; Orig.
Dec. 29–30). The optical system such as that disclosed in Dragne does not
rely on the weight of the object for detection so as to allow for detection of
passage of even light-weight objects. In addition, the optical systems such
as that disclosed in Dragne avoids potential problems that can be caused by
frictional wear because there are no interacting moving parts. Accordingly,
the rejection is based on addressing inaccurate detection of light-weight
objects so as to increase the sensitivity range, and on avoiding the frictional
wear present in interacting moving parts, which could result in potential
failure. Such reasons for substituting the mechanical sensing system of
Schuller with an optical system are rational and sufficient to support the
conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Such substitution, however, does not necessarily indicate any
superiority as to one over the other as suggested by the Patent Owner, but
merely a valid basis for so doing.
In KSR, the Supreme Court affirmed that “when a patent claims a
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The
claimed invention substitutes a mechanical sensing system with an optical
sensing system to attain predictable results. While ambient light can be
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

7
problematic in applying an optical sensing system to glass front vending
machines, the prior art optical sensing systems had already recognized the
problem that ambient light could cause, and had already provided a solution
for addressing such a problem as evidenced by Dragne and Endl (Orig. Dec.
14–16, 19–20; FF 23, 27, 31, 41).
We do not disagree with the Patent Owner’s assertion that electronic
(i.e., optical) sensing systems are also subject to wear and failure (Rehr’g
Req. 4). However, the wear in such optical sensing systems is not frictional
wear, and correspondingly, the potential failure would also not be due to
frictional wear. As already explained (Orig. Dec. 27–28), “a given course of
action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does
not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Winner Int’l Royalty
Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should
not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with
the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should
be weighed against one another.”). As noted, the substitution is proposed for
addressing a specific functional problem or limitation in sensing light-weight
objects, and to address a cause for potential failure, which are associated
with the mechanical system disclosed in Schuller. We are in agreement with
the Examiner that such substitution would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
The Patent Owner also argues that the Board failed to provide any
insight “as to why it would have been obvious to use an optical sensor over
another type of electronic sensor,” and that “[t]he fact that an optical sensor
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

8
has been used in a vending machine does not suffice as proof of that fact.”
(Rehr’g Req. 5). However, the fact that there may have been other
electronic sensors available such as impact and vibration sensors, does not
detract from the fact that an optical sensor would have been suitable and
obvious. In addition, the fact that optical sensors have already been used in
vending machines supports the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. In this
regard, Levasseur explicitly teaches that optical sensors can be used in
substitution for mechanical sensors in the context of vending machines
(Orig. Dec. 18; FF 35; see also RAN 15 stating “Levasseur is pertinent to
the combination of Schuller and Dragne because Levasseur explicitly
teaches that an electromechanical type sensor (like in Schuller) is
interchangeable with a photoelectric or optical type of sensor (like in
Dragne)”; see also Ans. 15).
The Patent Owner further argues that there is no explanation as to why
one of ordinary skill would have placed the optical sensor in the position
claimed to detect products as they freely fall through the vend space (Rehr’g
Req. 5). However, the Original Decision explained that:
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
reason to position the replacement optical sensing system in
approximately the same position occupied by Schuller's vend
flap 29 in order to maintain the relationships between different
components of the vending machine. The proposed substitution
would have yielded a vending machine in which was performed
the step of “emitting pulsed electromagnetic radiation in a
plurality of beams such that said electromagnetic radiation
substantially subtends a detection region through which said
dispensed object will freely fall, upon being dispensed” (italics
added) as recited in representative claim 1.
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

9
(Orig. Dec. 29–30; see also id. at 30 stating “an optical sensing system, once
substituted for Schuller’s vend flap 29, would have sensed vended items as
the items fell freely through the light beams of the optical sensing system”;
see also id. at 30–31 stating “the limitation requiring ‘an optical vend-
sensing system configured to sense when said selected product freely falls
through said vend space’ adds nothing of patentable consequence as
compared to the suggested combination of prior art.”).
In addition, in footnote 3, the Patent Owner states:
The Board failed to address numerous distinguishing claim
limitations by treating claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 is not
representative of the patentability of all claims of the ’220
patent and AMS never asserted otherwise. For example, claim
28 of the ’220 patent requires, at least two light emitters and
that the light emitted from each of the two light emitters is
detected by at least two of the plurality of light detectors.
(Rehr’g Req. 6).
However, the subject of the present appeal is U.S. Patent 7,191,915,
not “the ’220 patent.” In addition, to any extent that reference to the ’220
patent can be considered a typographical error, we note that claim 28 of the
’915 patent does not recite “at least two light emitters.”
Moreover, as set forth in the Original Decision:
The Patent Owner argues the patentability of all of the claims as
a group without specifically arguing the language of any
particular claim. We group all of the appealed claims together
for purposes of grounds of rejection A and C; and specifically
address only the language of representative claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(l)(vii) (2011).
(Orig. Dec. 7).
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

10
The Original Decision further states:
Only issues and findings of fact contested by the
Appellant/Patent Owner have been considered. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(c)(1)(vii) (2011); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI
2010).
(Id.).
The cited Regulation in both of the above portions of the Original
Decision states, inter alia:
When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection
are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a
single claim from the group of claims that are argued together
to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone.
37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(l)(vii) (2011).
Thus, the responsibility was upon the Patent Owner to explicitly argue
in its Appeal Brief, any claims and limitations therein, for which it wished to
have the Board specifically consider. See also In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365;
Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075–76. In this regard, the Board also
addressed various other claims to the extent that they were raised and argued
in the Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief (Orig. Dec. 33–36).

Issue 2
The Patent Owner argues that the Original Decision is erroneous
because the Board did not construe the claim terms “vend space” and
“ambient light,” and applied these terms inconsistently (Rehr’g Req. 6).
We initially observe that this argument as to “vend space” appears to
be new in that it does not appear to be in the Appeal Brief. In addition, this
limitation does not even appear in representative independent claim 1, which
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

11
merely recites “a detection region.” Regardless, the Original Decision finds,
and sufficiently discusses, that Schuller discloses a vertical passage 13 that
defines a vend space in a vending machine (Orig. Dec. 24; see also id. at 9–
10; FF 5–12).
The Patent Owner sets forth its interpretation of “vend space” (which
again, is not recited in representative claim 1), and asserts that the recited
vend space must be unconstrained and extend down into a bin so that the
selected product would fall into the bin (Rehr’g Req. 7). According to the
Patent Owner, Schuller does not disclose a “fully open, unconstrained
space” because vend flap 29 (i.e., impact sensor) and gate 25 “covers the
entire area above the bin when closed.” (Id. at 8). However, the Patent
Owner argues limitations not appearing in the claim as the claims do not
recite a “fully open, unconstrained” vend space. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (features not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability). The fact that there may be pivotable fingers that
extend into the space does not mean that the space is not a vend space,
Schuller disclosing a vertical passage 13 through which the product is
vended.
Moreover, even if the claim was interpreted to require that the recited
detection region be “fully open, unconstrained space” extending into the bin,
the Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because it argues this
limitation in the context of Schuller individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references). Specifically, the Patent Owner ignores the fact
that upon modifying Schuller in the manner suggested for the reasons noted
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

12
in the rejection, the combination results in the vend space of Schuller being a
“fully open, unconstrained space.” As already pointed out supra, the
Original Decision states that “[t]he proposed substitution would have yielded
a vending machine in which … ‘said electromagnetic radiation substantially
subtends a detection region through which said dispensed object will freely
fall, upon being dispensed.’” (Orig. Dec. 30). The Original Decision further
states that “an optical sensing system, once substituted for Schuller’s vend
flap 29, would have sensed vended items as the items fell freely through the
light beams of the optical sensing system.” (Id.). Gate 25 is disclosed in
Schuller as moving to its open position when the consumer purchases and
selects the product (Orig. Dec. 10; FF 10). Nowhere does Schuller teach an
instance where the gate does not open when the purchase and selection is
made.
The Patent Owner also argues that the limitation “ambient light”
means and refers to light that is “external to the system,” but that this
definition was ignored by the Board (Rehr’g Req. 9). In this regard, the
Patent Owner asserts that “there is no external ambient light within the
Dragne seed tubes.” (Id.). However, this limitation was sufficiently
addressed in the Original Decision (Orig. Dec. 14–16, 19–20, 28–29, 31–33;
FF 23, 27, 29, 31, 40–41). Not only does Dragne address the problem of
“ambient light,” Endl also explicitly recognizes the problem raised by
ambient light that is external to an optical sensing system (Orig. Dec. 19; FF
40; see also RAN 16 stating “Endl is pertinent to the combination of
Schuller and Dragne because Endl explicitly teaches that the accuracy of a
photoelectric sensing system is affected by ambient light”; see also Ans. 16).
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

13
Importantly, the Patent Owner’s argument is again misdirected
because whether the “ambient light” disclosed in Dragne is “internal” or
“external” ambient light does not impact the fact that Dragne’s system
accounts for light other than the excitation light provided by its disclosed
system for detecting the falling object. As explained in the Original
Decision with respect to Dragne:
During the calibration, the voltage V1 represents a combination
of the light transmitted by the light transmitter 15 and of any
ambient light. Hence, the voltage V1, and the calibration
process as a whole, is based on ambient light. Were an optical
sensing unit 11 the type described by Dragne placed in a
vending machine near a transparent front, the calibration
performed in accordance with the teachings of Dragne at
column 7, lines 19–28 would be based, at least in part, on
ambient light entering through the transparent front.
(Orig. Dec. 16 (emphasis added); FF 29).
Dragne teaches using infrared LEDs in the light transmitter, and a
pigmented potting material filter light outside the infrared range, so as to
make the sensing system less sensitive to ambient light (see Orig. Dec. 14;
FF 23; Dragne, col. 5, ll. 54–60 and col. 6, ll. 22–24). Whether this ambient
light is generated inside or outside the system is not pertinent as the system
in Dragne does not discriminate as to where the ambient light originates.
Dragne also teaches including within the receiver circuit monitoring the light
receiver, a DC compressor circuit that cooperates with the resistor to filter
out the effects of ambient light, and again, whether this ambient light is
generated inside or outside the system is not pertinent (see Orig. Dec. 15–17;
FF 27–32; Dragne, col. 8, ll. 20–23).
Thus, as the Original Decision further explained:
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

14
Had one of ordinary skill in the art installed an optical sensing
system similar to that described by Dragne, including a
microprocessor 13 and a control circuit 17 for performing the
calibration process described by Dragne, into a vending
machine of the type described by Schuller, the optical sensing
unit would have performed the calibration process based on
ambient light entering the vending machine through the
transparent front. (FF 29).
(Orig. Dec. 31 (emphasis added)).

Issue 3
The Patent Owner objects to various findings set forth in the Original
Decision as being inaccurate and/or incomplete (Rehr’g Req. 10–13).
However, upon review of the contentions of the Patent Owner, we discern
no error in the findings as set forth in the Original Decision. We nonetheless
address specific arguments of the Patent Owner as to certain findings.
As to Findings 10 and 12 regarding Schuller, the Patent Owner argues
that because the dispensed carton impacts and deflects sensing means 29, the
carton does not freely fall as required by the claims (Rehr’g Req. 10). The
Patent Owner also argues that if gate 25 does not open, the dispensed carton
would not reach the bin (id.). As to Finding 10, as noted supra, gate 25 is
disclosed in Schuller as moving to its open position whenever the consumer
purchases and selects the product (Orig. Dec. 10; FF 10). Nowhere does
Schuller teach an instance where the gate does not open when the purchase
and selection is made.
Finding 12 finds that as a cigarette carton drops “(that is, free
falling),” it strikes the fingers 219 of the sensing means 29 (Orig. Dec. 10;
FF 12). While we disagree with the Patent Owner that the mere fact that the
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

15
dropping carton strikes the fingers makes the carton’s fall, no longer a “free
fall,” the Patent Owner misses the point of the obviousness rejection, which
as discussed supra, is principally based on the combination of Schuller with
Dragne in which the mechanical sensing system of Schuller is substituted
with the optical sensing system of Dragne. Such substitution eliminates the
fingers so that, as already noted supra, “[t]he proposed substitution would
have yielded a vending machine in which … ‘said electromagnetic radiation
substantially subtends a detection region through which said dispensed
object will freely fall, upon being dispensed.’” (Orig. Dec. 30). As also
pointed out, “an optical sensing system, once substituted for Schuller’s vend
flap 29, would have sensed vended items as the items fell freely through the
light beams of the optical sensing system.” (Id.).
As to Finding 27, the Patent Owner again argues that there is no
external ambient light in the device of Dragne because the tubes are made of
metal, and that the rejection is based on this “fundamental flaw.” (Rehr’g
Req. 11). Firstly, we observe that Dragne explicitly discloses “ambient
light.” (See e.g., Orig. Dec. 14; FF 23). While Dragne does not disclose
whether the referenced “ambient light” is external, internal, or some
combination of both, this again, is not dispositive. As discussed supra, the
rejection substitutes Schuller’s mechanical sensing system with the optical
sensing system disclosed in Dragne, in which case, the optical system would
account for external ambient light (or any light other than the excitation light
provided by its disclosed system) that may be present (Orig. Dec. 16; FF 29;
see also Orig. Dec. at 28–29). The optical system of Dragne does not
discriminate as to where the ambient light originates.
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

16
The Patent Owner’s arguments appears to be premised on the belief
that the motivation for the combination of prior art references must be the
same as the reason that motivated the inventor of the subject ’915 patent.
Under such a view, the motivation for combining the references must stem
from the fact that glass front vending machines allow in external ambient
light, and because (according to the Patent Owner) there is no “external
ambient light” in the seed dispensing systems, there is no motivation for the
combination of prior art as suggested in the rejection. However, that is not
the law. “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 419. Moreover, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim. Id.
at 418. What is required is an articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings in support of the rejection, which has been provided. Id.

Issue 4
The Patent Owner argues that the Board’s analogous art analysis is
erroneous because Dragne is not “reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem faced by the inventor.” (Rehr’g Req. 14). However, this issue has
been sufficiently addressed (Orig. Dec. 13–14; FF 22 and fn. 8; Orig. Dec.
23–24). As explained, even if the prior art reference is not in the same field
of endeavor, a reference is analogous if “the reference [] is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Patent Owner again
defines its problem very narrowly (Rehr’g Req. 14), such a definition
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

17
essentially reads out the “reasonably pertinent” qualifier to the analogous art
test.

Issue 5
Finally, the Patent Owner argues that the Original Decision
misapprehends, and misapplies, the law regarding proof of commercial
success (Rehr’g Req. 14). The Patent Owner’s argument is based on its
disagreement with the Board’s weighing of the evidence of secondary
considerations proffered. The Board set forth its consideration of the
proffered evidence in the Original Decision (Orig. Dec. 20–23, 26–27; FF
42–47). While the Patent Owner has asserted that the proffered evidence
indicates commercial success, we observe that none of the evidence is of
high quality for the reasons already explained in the Original Decision, and
the proffered evidence lacks sufficient detail to support the Patent Owner’s
assertions as to what the evidence show. Much has been asserted but the
information that would support these assertions and make them persuasive
has not been provided by the Patent Owner. When the proffered evidence is
considered in its totality and cumulatively, it does not persuade us that the
claimed invention was unobvious.
Although generally agreeing that most of the Patent Owner’s
arguments in the Request for Rehearing are unpersuasive, our colleague
nonetheless dissents, opining that the rehearing should be granted and the
claims found to be patentable. The dissent is based, at least in part, on the
proffered secondary considerations, including sales evidence, licensing
evidence, and two advertisements, the dissent disagreeing with our weighing
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

18
of this evidence proffered by the Patent Owner. Nonetheless, we are of the
opinion that the evidence is of poor quality and of little probative value.
For example, as to the licenses, as set forth in the Original Decision
(Orig. Dec. 21–23, 29; FF 44, 47), the Patent Owner has not provided
information regarding the actual value of these licenses in generating
royalties, or regarding the number of products manufactured under the
licenses. Without evidence as to the value of the licenses, coupled with
sufficient evidence as to the vending machine market to put the value or
impact of the licenses into perspective, the licenses are not persuasive
indicators of commercial success. In this regard, the licenses may have been
taken due to litigation or threat thereof, as compared to the cost of the
license (not provided), rather than due to industry recognition that the
claimed subject matter was valuable or nonobvious. Iron Grip Barbell Co.
v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the law
“specifically require affirmative evidence of nexus where the evidence of
commercial success presented is a license, because it is often ‘cheaper to
take licenses than to defend infringement lawsuits.’”).
As to sales, the Patent Owner has asserted that sales in 1999 were
294% over its 1998 sales levels but the Patent Owner does not provide what
the 1998 sales levels were (or for that matter, what sales levels were for any
year) so that the percentage increase cannot be appropriately considered
(Schull Decl. ¶ 12). To the contrary, the Patent Owner testifies that it did
not have an established customer base in 1998 (id. ¶ 11), and that its product
with “Sensit®” vend detection feature was introduced in 1998 (id. ¶ 10),
which implies that the sales volume in 1998 may have been very small. The
same can be said of the Patent Owner’s sales in 2000, which is said to have
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

19
increased another 60% over some unknown, but potentially small, 1999
sales levels (id. ¶ 12). In this respect, it is not entirely surprising that after
2000, the Patent Owner “never again experienced the sales growth of 1999
and 2000.” (Schull Decl. ¶ 12).
While testimony is provided in 2011 that over 50,000 units have been
sold since 1998, and that “tens of millions of dollars in revenue” has been
generated, the vagueness of the units sold, vagueness of the revenue, lack of
specific yearly information, and lack of any evidence as to what the asserted
sale and revenue numbers mean in the context of the vending machine
market, all limit the probative value of the evidence. In re Huang, 100 F.3d
135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Although Huang’s affidavit certainly indicates
that many units have been sold, it provides no indication of whether this
represents a substantial quantity in this market. This court has noted in the
past that evidence related solely to the number of units sold provides a very
weak showing of commercial success, if any”); see also In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“[I]nformation solely on
numbers of units sold is insufficient to establish commercial success.”);
Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1150-51 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There
was no evidence of market share, of growth in market share, of replacing
earlier units sold by others or of dollar amounts, and no evidence of a nexus
between sales and the merits of the invention. Under such circumstances,
consideration of the totality of the evidence, including that relating to
commercial success, does not require a holding that the invention would
have been nonobvious at the time it was made to one skilled in the art.”).
Moreover, the evidence is inadequate to establish that such
commercial sales evidence is attributable to the unique characteristics of the
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

20
product. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Appellant
must offer proof “that the sales were a direct result of the unique
characteristics of the claimed invention-as opposed to other economic and
commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.”).
While the Crane advertisements referenced in the dissent do highlight the
infrared beam vend-sensing feature, they also make clear that vending
machines are provided with multiple other features that can enhance the
desirability and sales of vending machines.1 We are not provided with
information regarding the products of the Patent Owner that the asserted
commercial success evidence is based and features provided thereon, which
would allow establishment of a sufficient nexus between the claimed
invention and the product sold and the asserted commercial success.
In the above regard, the Patent Owner also does not provide us with
adequate information as to the marketing and pricing of the products,
especially considering that, in its own words, the company did not have an
established customer base, and the product was introduced in 1998. The
products introduced by the Patent Owner may have been aggressively
marketed and aggressively priced to allow entry of a newly introduced
product into the market. The Patent Owner wants the Board to attribute the
alleged success to the claimed invention. However, there are too many
missing pieces of the puzzle that will allow us to fairly attribute the asserted

1 For example, in addition to the infrared beam vend-sensing system, Crane
advertisements also tout features including: reestablishment of credit;
refund; consistent home position of spirals; no machine downtime (App. Br.
Attachment 2, Advertisement 1); slide out dividers; shelf tilting for easy
loading; continuous price rolls; pricing data recall (App. Br. Attachment 3,
Advertisement 2).
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

21
success to the claimed invention instead of some other factors. The Patent
Owner has not provided persuasive evidence supporting such attribution.
We do not disagree with the dissent that Crane advertisements make
clear that the allegedly infringing SureVend™ feature is an important
feature. However, to extrapolate from provision of such a feature in a
competitor’s product to the conclusion that such a feature would have been
unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in our view, goes too far. The
law provides the Patent Owner with various ways in which the secondary
consideration evidence can support the ultimate conclusion of
unobviousness. However, there are requirements for providing adequate
supporting evidence and proof.
For example, the above cited In re Huang provides guidance as to the
types of evidence required to persuasively establish commercial success
while Iron Grip Barbell provides guidance as to evaluating licenses. To the
extent that Patent Owner’s evidence implies copying (Schull Dec. ¶¶ 13, 14,
21, 22; Appeal Br. Attachments 2 and 3), “[n]ot every competing product
that arguably falls within the scope of a patent is evidence of copying.
Otherwise every infringement suit would automatically confirm the
nonobviousness of the patent. Rather, copying requires the replication of a
specific product.” Iron Grip Barbell Co. Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d
1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Copying
may be demonstrated either through internal documents, see
Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc.,
344 F.3d 1186, 1196-97 (Fed.Cir.2003); direct evidence such as
disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features,
and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a virtually
identical replica, see Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State
Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed.Cir.2000); or access to, and
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

22
substantial similarity to, the patented product (as opposed to the
patent), Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d
1015, 1027 (Fed.Cir.1985), overruled on other grounds by,
Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356,
1359 (Fed.Cir.1999) (en banc).
Iron Grip Barbell Co. Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
In the present appeal, we are simply not provided with evidence of
sufficient quality that support the Patent Owner’s assertions, which are based
on general and vague statements. The dissent weighs the proffered evidence
more favorably, and in view of the skill of those in the vending machine art,
concludes unobviousness of the claims. In our view, the proffered evidence
is of little probative value, and is inadequate to show that the claimed
invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
vending machine art. We discuss issues raised by the dissent as to the
person of ordinary skill infra.

Additional Issues
The dissenting opinion is also based on the finding that some level of
effort and expense would have been required to utilize the sensing system of
Dragne in a transparent front vending machine, which has a much larger
vend space, and the finding that a person of ordinary skill is not an expert in
the field of optical sensors.
The level of skill of those in the vending machine art is, at minimum,
exemplified by the prior art of record, which includes Levasseur, Tanaka,
Percy, and Truitt, as well as the admitted prior art. In this respect, there is
no dispute that optical sensors have been used in vending machines to detect
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

23
proper vending of products. In fact, the Patent Owner has admitted that
optical sensors were even used in transparent front vending machines to
sense proper vending, but only by providing such a sensor in an enclosed
location not subjected to ambient light (Appeal Brief 10, stating that in a
prior art glass front vending machine, “an optical sensor within an elevator
worked only when it stopped at the bottom of a glass front vending machine,
and this bin was covered to keep out light.”). While such optical sensors
were not used at a location exposed to ambient light, Schuller clearly teaches
the desirability of sensing the proper vending of product in a transparent
front vending machines as the product falls by providing a vend-sensing
system, albeit an electromechanical sensing system. Thus, we view the
suggested combination as applied in the rejections of substituting an optical
sensing system for the electromechanical sensing system of Schuller to be a
natural and logical progression of the vending machine art, which would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In addition, each of these prior art vending machines include
electronic controls to not only process the currency inserted and the product
selected by the consumer, but also to process the signal/information
provided by the vend-sensing system, and to deal with the situation in which
a product is not properly vended. Schuller itself discloses the relatively high
level of skill that a person of ordinary skill in the vending machine art
possesses in terms of electronics and signal processing, including the signal
from the provided electromechanical sensing system (see Schuller, Figs. 14–
16 and disclosure related thereto). Similarly, Levasseur discloses a vending
control system that demonstrates a relatively sophisticated level of skill in
electronics and signal processing in the vending machine art, including the
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

24
signal from the provided vend-sensing system (see Levesseur, Figs. 1–5 and
disclosure related thereto). Levasseur further teaches the substitutability of
an optical system for a mechanical system, thereby indicating that such
substitution is within the skill of those in the art (Orig. Dec. 18, FF 35).
Furthermore, the use of a single light emitter and receiver, as well as
the use of multiple light emitter and receivers were known in the vending
machine art (Tanaka Figs. 1–3). In this regard, Tanaka discusses that “in the
prior art, it was necessary to eliminate detection light ray dead zones by
arranging multiple sets, usually 5 to 6 sets, of detection units in parallel in
the width direction of the receiving tray chamber.” (Tanaka, pg. 4).
Correspondingly, scaling of a detection system to include multiple sets of
emitters and receivers was also already known and within the skill of those
of ordinary skill in the vending machine art. Hence, in our view, the
evidence indicates that the level of skill of those in the vending machine art
was quite high and sophisticated, not only in the context of the mechanical
components of a vending machine, but the electronic controls and sensing
systems, as well as processing signals associated therewith. Accordingly, in
our view, modification of the vending machine of Schuller in the manner
suggested in the rejection would have been within his or her level of skill.
To any extent that the skill of those in the art was lacking, we agree with the
dissent that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to look into other
art, such as the art of optical sensing systems. In this regard, as the dissent
agrees, the seed dispensing system of Dragne, while in a different field, is
reasonably pertinent to the problem confronting the inventors.
While the dissent also notes the size difference between the seed
transport ducts of Dragne and a detection region, as discussed above, we are
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

25
of the opinion that scaling of the system disclosed in Dragne is well within
the level of skill of those in the art. We further observe that articles typically
dispensed in vending machines are many orders of magnitude larger in size
than seeds, thereby implying that any such scaling of the system disclosed in
Dragne may be minimal.2
In addition, while there may costs associated with such a
modification,3 the fact that a combination may not be made by businessmen
for economic reasons does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not make the combination. See Orthopedic Equipment Company, Inc.
et al. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“the fact that
the two disclosed apparatus would not be combined by businessmen for
economic reasons is not the same as saying that it could not be done because
skilled persons in the art felt that there was some technological
incompatibility that prevented their combination. Only the latter fact is
telling on the issue of nonobviousness.”). Moreover, in the present case,
there is an economic motivation in favor of modifying Schuller in the
manner suggested. As explained, such modification allows the vending
machine of the type disclosed in Schuller to vend, and allows better

2 Obviously, the system would have to be scaled up in size to deal with the
larger vend space relative to the seed tube in Dragne, but the relative sizes of
the vend space versus the item being vended would appear to be fairly
similar. Thus, we do not agree with our colleague that such scaling “would
have required significant modification to serve as a vend-sensing system in a
vending machine.” Dissent 4.

3 By cost, we refer to costs of modification, not the cost of manufacture,
which may or may not be reduced/increased in using optical electronics
instead of electromechanical components.
Appeal 2013-006814
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607

26
detection of vending of, smaller and lighter products, thereby increasing the
variety of products that can be sold (see Orig. Dec. 27).
Accordingly, having fully considered the evidence of record in its
totality, we are of the view that the rejection of the claims is appropriate, and
are not persuaded of error.
DECISION
While we have considered the Original Decision in view of the
Request for Rehearing, and have elaborated on certain aspects of it, we
decline to modify the Original Decision in any respect.

DENIED

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), this decision is final for the purpose
of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

DSS
BCM

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

CRANE CO.
Respondent, Requester
v.
Patent of AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING SYSTEMS,
INC.
Appellant, Patent Owner
________________

Appeal 2013-006814
Inter Partes Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,191,915 C1
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DANIEL S. SONG and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.

INTRODUCTION
I join my colleagues in denying rehearing of the issue raised in the
“Supplemental Brief in Support of Request for Reconsideration on Appeal to
Board,” dated May 1, 2015. In addition, I disagree with many, if not most,
of the arguments raised by the Patent Owner in the “Patent Owner’s Request
for Reconsideration of the Decision on Appeal,” dated October 28, 2013
(“Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”). Nevertheless, having reviewed the
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,191,915 C1

2
Record, including the “Corrected Appeal Brief,” dated September 4, 2012
(“Appeal Brief” or “App. Br.”); and the “Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief,”
dated February 28, 2013 (“Rebuttal Brief” or “Reb. Br.”),4 in view of the
arguments raised in the Rehearing Request, I believe that I misapprehended
or overlooked sufficient points to justify granting the Rehearing Request.
My colleagues affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–46
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Schuller (US 3,901,366, issued Aug. 26, 1975) and Dragne (US
5,883,383, issued Mar. 16, 1999) (Ground A); or of Schuller, Levasseur (US
4,359,147, issued Nov. 16, 1982), Dragne and Endl (US 3,742,222, issued
June 26, 1973) (Ground C). I disagree.
As set forth in the “Decision on Appeal,” mailed September 27, 2013
(“Decision”), the claims on appeal relate to methods for detecting whether
an object within a transparent front vending machine has actually been
delivered to a consumer. (See ʼ915 patent, col. 3, ll. 16–18). The Patent
Owner asserts that the claimed subject enables the machine to sense the
delivery of a selected product by equipping a transparent front vending
machine “with an optical sensor system which uses electromagnetic
radiation that creates a detection zone that, as in claim 1, substantially
subtends a detection region, and to detect a product as it freely falls through
that detection region, and using an optical sensor system that calibrates and
accounts for current ambient light conditions inside vending machines.”
(App. Br. 7 & 8).

4 The Requester has not participated in this appeal.
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

3
Claims 1, 32, 35 and 43 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of detecting a dispensed object within a
transparent front vending machine, the method comprising:
emitting pulsed electromagnetic radiation in a plurality of
beams such that said electromagnetic radiation substantially
subtends a detection region through which said dispensed
object will freely fall, upon being dispensed;
causing said emitted electromagnetic radiation to reach at
least one electromagnetic radiation detecting element;
selecting a detection threshold that is exceeded when said
object to be detected does not intercept said detection region
and is not reached when said object intercepts said region; and
comparing a plurality of signals from said
electromagnetic radiation detecting element, each at a different
time, to said detection threshold,
wherein a pulse width of said pulsed radiation is selected
during a calibration so as to account for current ambient light
conditions inside the vending machine.
(See App. Br. 30 (Claims App’x.)).
Schuller describes a machine for displaying cartons of cigarettes or
other cartoned merchandise through transparent front doors; and for
dispensing selected cartons to a purchaser. (See “Examiner’s Answer,”
mailed January 28, 2013 (“Ans.”), at 5, citing Schuller, col. 3, ll. 34–37; see
also Schuller, col. 1, ll. 5–7 & 14–22). Schuller’s machine includes an
electromechanical vend-sensing system capable of sensing when a carton
falls through a vertical passage 13 toward a customer-accessible delivery
chamber. The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 1–46
would have been obvious based on a proposed replacement of Schuller’s
electromechanical vend-sensing system with an optical system that is
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

4
“accurate” in the sense of being capable of sensing the passage of small or
lightweight items. (See Ans. 6 & 20). Taking into account the fact that the
secondary reference, Dragne, is taken from an arguably different field of
endeavor; that the optical sensing system described by Dragne would have
required significant modification to serve as a vend-sensing system in a
vending machine; and that the objective evidence indicates industry
recognition that the claimed subject matter represented a technical advance
in the design of vending machines, the Examiner’s articulated reason for the
proposed modification does not convince me that the subject matter of the
appealed claims would have been obvious.

CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claims undergoing reexamination are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. In re American Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). “Therefore, we look to the specification to see it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
More specifically, “the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would [have] be[en] understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable under
general claim construction principles. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn,
Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, for example, our
reviewing court cautions us against reading limitations into claims from
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

5
embodiments described in the specification, absent a clear disclaimer.
American Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369. On the other hand, a
proper claim interpretation “tak[es] into account whatever enlightenment . . .
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” Morris, 127 F.3d at 1504. “The PTO should also consult the
patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been
brought back for a second review.” Proxyconn, 789 F.3d at 1298.

“Freely Fall”
The Patent Owner criticizes the Decision for not formally interpreting
the term “vend space.” (See Reh’g Req. 7 & 8). The term “vend space”
appears in only one of the four independent claims, however. For present
purposes, it is more useful to discuss the meaning of the term “a detection
region through which said dispensed object will freely fall,” as recited in
claims 1 and 35; or “a vend space within said vending machine through
which a dispensed product freely falls,” as recited in claim 43. I understand
the term “freely fall,” as used in these claims, to mean that the dispensed
object or product falls through the detection region or the vend space subject
to no other constraint than the force of gravity. (See Reh’g Req. 8 (“[T]he
claims at issue require that a substantially unconstrained cross-section be
monitored.”)).5
The term “freely fall” is not used in the written description of the ʼ915
patent. (See Ans. 22). The interpretation of the term “freely fall” as

5 Although I give the term “freely fall” its broadest reasonable
interpretation for purposes of this opinion, my interpretation would not have
changed in the event that the ʼ915 patent expired during this proceeding.
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

6
meaning that the dispensed object or product falls through the detection
region or the vend space unconstrained except by gravity is at least
consistent with the embodiments described in columns 5–19 of the patent.
More importantly, the interpretation of the term “freely fall” as
meaning that the dispensed object or product falls through the detection
region or the vend space subject to no other constraint than the force of
gravity is supported by the prosecution history of prior Reexamination
90/009,233. During the course of the prior reexamination, the Examiner
rejected claims 32, 25 and 43 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over two
prior art combinations. Both prior art combinations relied on Levasseur as
teaching the use of an optical sensor for vend detection in a vending
machine. (See Office Action, mailed Feb. 5, 2009 in Reexamination
90/009,233, at 3; see also Decision 17 & 18 (FF 34 & 35)). On page 13 of a
“Patent Owner’s Response to Official Action,” dated March 9, 2009, the
Patent Owner argued that the “concept of monitoring a substantially
unconstrained cross-section of the product delivery path to detect the
passage of products as they fell was not disclosed in the prior art—that was
one of the contributions of the present inventors.” On page 21, the Patent
Owner’s expanded on this argument:
Levasseur is cited for the disclosure of a sensor in a
vending machine. As conceded in the Office Action, however,
Levasseur’s sensor is a single point sensor 143. As described in
Levasseur, that point sensor is located in a passageway or
chute. See [“Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander, III
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.248,” executed May 24, 2011
(“McAlexander Decl.”)], pp. 3–4. [See also Levasseur, col. 7,
ll. 48–58.] Thus, Levasseur is a system that channels or directs
a product through a passageway or chute to a single point
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

7
sensor. This is not the system recited in the claims of the ʼ915
patent. The ʼ915 patent claims require the vend detection
system to detect the vended product as it “freely falls” toward a
retrieval bin. In a transparent-front vending machine like those
recited in the ʼ915 patent claims, there is only one area above
the retrieval bin in which vended products “freely fall”—the
area behind the glass, in front of the vending spirals or
mechanisms, and above the retrieval bin. Levasseur does not
have such a vend space6 and Levasseur does not have its single
point sensor located to detect products as they “freely fall”
through such a vend space. See [McAlexander Decl.,] pp. 3–4.
Although the prior examiner maintained the same rejection against
claims 35 and 43 in a Final Office Action, mailed Feburary 26, 2010, the
Examiner ultimately concluded that claims 32, 35 and 43 were patentable.
On page 2 of a “Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination
Certificate,” mailed June 18, 2010, the prior examiner agreed with the Patent
Owner that:
The prior art fail[ed] to teach a method of detecting a dispensed
product within a transparent front vending machine, including
monitoring an unconstrained cross-section of a product delivery
path to detect passage of a product as it freely [fell] upon being
dispensed. Instead, the prior art (e.g., Levasseur) [taught]

6 Even assuming that the Decision’s lack of an express interpretation
for the term “vend space” in claim 43 constitutes error, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term is that set forth in Reexamination
90/009,233, namely, “the area behind the glass, in front of the vending
spirals or mechanisms, and above the retrieval bin.” The interpretation
proposed by the Patent Owner at the bottom of page 7 of the Rehearing
Request is unreasonably narrow because it would either contradict, or render
superfluous, other limitations of claim 43. The Examiner correctly
concludes that the “vend space” does not extend as far as, much less into, the
retrieval bin, as claim 43 recites that the “cross-sectional area” at which
vended items are detected is both below the vend space and above the
retrieval bin. (See Ans. 21).
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

8
channeling products to a product detector and/or monitoring an
area where dispensed products [came] to rest.
The Patent Owner’s argument, on which the prior examiner relied,
supports the conclusion that the term “freely fall” as used in the claims under
reexamination means that the dispensed object or product falls through the
detection region or the vend space subject to no other constraint than the
force of gravity. In particular, the prosecution history of the Reexamination
90/009,233 indicates that the term “freely fall” excludes falling through a
passageway or chute within a vending machine.

“Ambient Light” and “Calibration”
Claim 1 recites a method including the step of “emitting pulsed
electromagnetic radiation in a plurality of beams . . ., wherein a pulse width
of said pulsed radiation is selected during a calibration so as to account for
current ambient light conditions inside the vending machine.” Claim 32
recites a method including the step of “calibrating at least some of said
plurality of electromagnetic emitters to account for current ambient light
conditions inside the vending machine.” Claim 35 recites a method
including the step of “calibrating said one or more light emitters in order to
account for current ambient light conditions inside the vending machine.”
Claim 43 recites a method including the step of “calibrating at least some of
said one or more emitters to account for current ambient light conditions
inside the vending machine.” The ʼ915 patent uses the term “ambient light”
narrowly to refer to external ambient light, that is, ambient light originating
outside the vending machine. (Decision 31, citing ʼ915 patent, col. 16, ll. 8
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

9
& 9 (“The ambient light is external to the system and excitation light is from
the system.”); Reh’g Req. 9).
A secondary reference, Dragne, describes optical sensing units 11 for
counting seeds moving through seed transport ducts 12 of a planter. (See
Dragne, col. 1, ll. 4–7 & col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 7). Dragne also uses the
term “ambient light” (see, e.g., Dragne, col. 5, ll. 55–57 & col. 8, ll. 20–23),
but uses the term in a broader sense than does the ʼ915 patent. As the Patent
Owner’s expert testifies, “ambient light” as the term is used in Dragne
“applies to whatever connotes ‘ambient’ inside the tube. Ambient simply
means ‘surrounding’ that which is present.” (“Declaration of Joseph C.
McAlexander, III Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.248,” executed May 24, 2011
(“McAlexander Decl.”), at 13).
The term “calibration” or “calibration” is more difficult to interpret.
One general purpose dictionary defines the term “calibrate” as sufficiently
broad to encompass “[t]o check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a
standard.” (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE (Houghton Mifflin Co., 4th ed., 2009), available at
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/calibrate (last visited September 10,
2013)). Facially, this definition appears consistent with the usage of the
term in the written description of the ʼ915 patent. For example, the “full
calibration” discussed in column 16 of the ’915 patent is an iterative process
for bringing a set of optical and control parameters of the vend-sensing
system within ranges of standard values. (See ’915 patent, col. 16, ll. 3–46).
Although the constraint of the variables within ranges of standard values is
somewhat analogous to comparison with standard values, the gist of the “full
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

10
calibration” is the incremental variation of the “PULSE” variable until a
stable value is reached. (See ʼ915 patent, col. 16, ll. 35–46). When carefully
considered, the dictionary definition is not consistent with the written
description of the ʼ915 patent.
Instead, the term “calibration” is best interpreted as a self-adjusting
process. During the course of prior Reexamination 90/009,233, the
Examiner rejected claims 32, 25 and 43 under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over two prior art combinations. Both prior art combinations
relied on Dogul (US 5,218,196, issued June 8, 1993), based on the
Examiner’s finding that an optical intrusion-detection sensor described by
Dogul included a control circuit 21 that functioned “to self-adjust/self-
calibrate the sensor in order to compensate for changing light conditions.”
(Office Action, mailed Feb. 5, 2009 in Reexamination 90/009,233, at 4).
The Patent Owner argued that Dogul failed to disclose “a calibration circuit
that calibrates the sensor for ambient light changes” because the control
circuit 21 “merely adjust[ed the] sensor to account for changes in the output
of the LED emitters themselves, or to account for attenuation of light
reaching the sensors.” (“Patent Owner’s Response to Official Action,” dated
March 9, 2009, at 21 & 22). The Patent Owner did not challenge the
Examiner interchangeable use of the words “self-adjust” and “self-
calibrate,” indicating that the Examiner’s understanding of the term
“calibrate” was correct. Indeed, it appears that the terms are used
interchangeably by vending machine manufacturers other than the Patent
Owner—an advertisement by the Requester reproduced as Attachment 2 to
the Appeal Brief describes its optical vend-sensing system as having
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

11
“Automatic Self-calibration—No Adjustment Is Necessary.” This statement
supports the interpretation of the term “calibrating” as “self-adjusting.”

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) provides that:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of
this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.
The statute is broadly consistent with the “functional approach to questions
of patentability” taken earlier by the Supreme Court in Hotchkiss v.
Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1850):7 “In practice, Hotchkiss has required a
comparison between the subject matter of the patent, or patent application,

7 The Supreme Court held in Graham that the “legislative history, as
well as other sources, show that the [1952] revision was not intended by
Congress to change the general level of patentable invention. [It held] that
[§ 103] was intended merely as a codification of judicial precendents
embracing the Hotchkiss condition.” Id. at 17. Nevertheless, the Reviser’s
Note indicated that § 103 was “added to the statute for uniformity and
definiteness;” and the “section should have a stabilizing effect and minimize
great departures which have appeared in some cases.” Federico,
Commentary on the New Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1, 20 (West Publ’g 1974). A
commentator active in the drafting of the 1952 codification stated that,
“[w]hile it is not believed that Congress intended any radical change in the
level of invention or patentable novelty, nevertheless, it is believed that
some modification was intended in the direction of moderating the extreme
degrees of strictness exhibited by a number of judicial opinions over the
[previous] dozen or more years; that is, some change of attitude more
favorable to patents was hoped for.” (Id. at 20 & 21).
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

12
and the background skill of the calling. It has been from this comparison
that patentability was in each case determined.” Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966).
The Supreme Court discussed the factual framework to be used in
analyzing obviousness in Graham:
While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of
law, [Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip.
Corp., 340 US 147, 150 (1950)], the § 103 condition, which is
but one of three conditions, each of which must be satisfied,
lends itself to several basic factual inquiries. Under § 103, the
scope and content of the prior art are to be determined;
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to
be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or
nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or
nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy. See Note,
Subtests of “Nonobviousness,” 112 U. Pa. L.Rev. 1169 (1964).
Id. at 17–18.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court instructs us that claimed subject
matter “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). On the
other hand, the “combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” Id. at 416 (italics added for emphasis). Within these bounds, the
Supreme Court has left it to the inferior courts to define the precise contours
of obviousness under § 103(a).
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

13
Our reviewing court has further defined the test for obviousness as
follows:
If all the elements of an invention are found in a combination of
prior art references,
a proper analysis under §103 requires, inter alia,
consideration of two factors: (1) whether the prior
art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art that they should make the claimed
composition or device, or carry out the claimed
process; and (2) whether the prior art would also
have revealed that in so making or carrying out,
those of ordinary skill would have a reasonable
expectation of success.
Velander v. Gardner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting In re
Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The motivation or reason to
combine the teachings of the prior art “need not be found in the references
sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources,
including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the
problem itself.” DyStar Textilfabriken GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In a reexamination proceeding, it is
appropriate to consider all of the evidence of record bearing on the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in order to determine whether
there would have been a motivation or reason to combine the teachings of
the references as claimed. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.2d 1355, 1362–63
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
The Supreme Court warns us against an overly rigid application of a
“teaching-suggestion-motivation” test for obviousness. In particular, the
Court cautions us that “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders
recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under [the Court’s] case
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

14
law nor consistent with it.” KSR Int’l at 421. Nevertheless, the Court
recognizes that “it can be important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does. This is because
inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since
uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations
of what, in some sense, is already known.” Id. at 418–19. In addition, the
Supreme Court instructs inferior tribunals to make explicit their reasons for
concluding that the subject matter of a claim would have been obvious, in
order to facilitate review. See id. at 418.
The nature of the motivation or reason required to prove obviousness
depends on the circumstances of the case. In certain simple fact scenarios,
little in the way of motivation may be required to satisfy the test for
obviousness. Drawing on its precedent, the Supreme Court instructs us that,
“when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR
Int’l at 416 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50–51 (1966)). In
such a case, the conclusion of obviousness might be justified based on the
normal desire of artisans to consider known alternatives in search of an
improvement to a conventional device or process. The Supreme Court also
instructs us that,
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

15
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR Int’l at 417. In the former case, the design incentives or other market
forces may provide the motivation. In the latter case, the prospect of
improving the similar device may provide the motivation.
The Supreme Court recognizes that the analysis of obviousness in
other fact scenarios may prove less simple:
Following these principles may be more difficult in other cases
than it is here because the claimed subject matter may involve
more than the simple substitution of one known element for
another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece
of prior art ready for the improvement. Often, it will be
necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.
KSR Int’l at 417–18.
Our reviewing court has emphasized that obviousness can only be
determined on the basis of a fact-specific inquiry. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d
1565, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In particular, the Board must consider
objective evidence of patentability, such as evidence tending to establish one
of the “secondary considerations” enumerated by the Supreme Court in
Graham, in any case where such evidence is of record. “Whether before the
Board or a court, [our reviewing court] has emphasized that consideration of
the objective indicia is part of the whole obviousness analysis, not just an
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

16
afterthought.” Leo Pharma. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed.
Cir. 2013). The mere presence of objective evidence does not imply
patentability. See Leapfrog Enterps., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For this reason, it can be useful for a party
submitting objective evidence to explain how the evidence impacts the
analysis whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious.
Nevertheless, where present, objective evidence “may often establish that an
invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.”
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538–39 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Our reviewing court instructs us that there is a fundamental
requirement for objective evidence to be persuasive:
“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be
accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a
nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed
invention.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Where the offered
secondary consideration actually results from something other
than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no
nexus to the merits of the claimed invention. Tokai Corp. v.
Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If
commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no
nexus exists.”); Ormco Corp. [v. Align Tech., Inc., 469 F.3d
1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)] (“[I]f the feature that creates the
commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is
not pertinent.”).
In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The nexus between
secondary evidence, such as evidence of commercial success or licensing,
and the subject matter of a claim may be established by secondary evidence
independent of the economic data or licenses submitted to prove such
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

17
secondary indicia. See, e.g., Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (finding a nexus between licenses and the claimed subject matter
based, at least in part, on a news article describing a novel feature of the
claimed subject matter as a “key part” of the licensed technology).

SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
Schuller
Schuller’s vendor includes a bank of dispensing modules D1–D4
sharing a common control module CM. (See Schuller, col. 2, ll. 62–67 &
Fig. 1). Each dispenser module D1-D4 of Schuller’s vendor includes a
cabinet 9 having a transparent front door 11 and a plurality of vertically-
arranged article dispensers 3 within the cabinet 9. Each dispenser 3 holds a
row of cigarette cartons to be vended. (See Schuller, col. 3, ll. 21–26 & 34–
37; & Figs. 3 & 4). Schuller describes the dispensers 3 as being spaced
rearwardly from the front 11 of each cabinet 9 to provide a vertical passage
13 within the cabinet 9. (See Schuller, col. 3, ll. 31–34 & Fig. 6). Each
dispenser 3 includes a screw-driven pusher 95 for feeding cartons forward
and dropping the forward-most carton off the front end of the dispenser 3
into the vertical passage 13 when the forward-most carton is purchased by a
customer. (See Schuller, col. 3, ll. 31–34 & 47–51; see also id. col. 16, ll.
16–19 & 38–43; & Fig. 6).
The Examiner correctly finds that Schuller does not describe a
vending machine including a vend-sensing system operating by
electromagnetic radiation. (See Ans. 5). Instead, each of Schuller’s cabinets
9 includes an electromechanical vend-sensing means for verifying that an
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

18
article purchased by a customer has been dispensed. The vend-sensing
means includes a vend flap 29 located just below the window 17, above the
gate 25 and the delivery chamber 19. The vend flap 29 includes a pivotable,
spring loaded horizontal rocker bar 217 mounting fingers 219 that project
into the path of a carton falling from a dispenser 3. (See Schuller, col. 3, ll.
57–62; col. 7, ll. 27–39; & Fig. 6; see also Ans. 5 (“The machine also
includes a sensing system 29 extending across the vend space above the
hopper.”)). A carton purchased and selected by a customer will freely (that
is, unobstructedly) fall through the vertical passage 13. (See Schuller, col. 3,
ll. 31–57 & Fig. 6; see also Ans. 5 (“the machine dispenses articles ‘C’
through a vend space 13 delimited in part by the front door.”)).
The Patent Owner correctly points out on page 10 of its Rehearing
Request that the electromechanical vend-sensing system described by
Schuller necessarily obstructs the movement of a carton that theretofore had
fallen freely through the vertical passage 13 onto the vend flap 29. This
argument highlights a problem with Schuller’s machine.
Among the objects of Schuller’s vending machine is to provide for the
“effective display of the articles stocked in the vendor” through transparent
front windows. (Schuller, col. 1, ll. 26–49; see also id., col. 3, ll. 34–37).
Although Schuller’s machine itself is designed to sell cartons of cigarettes or
other cartoned merchandise (See Schuller, col. 1, ll. 5–7 & 14–22), a
vending machine capable of displaying and vending both large and small
products likely would have found a larger customer base. The Patent
Owner’s expert witness points out that Schuller’s vend flap 29 would have
prevented Schuller’s vending machine from selling and dispensing smaller,
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

19
lighter products. (See McAlexander Decl. 8). One familiar with the
teachings of Schuller would have had reason to modify Schuller’s
transparent front vending machine to sense the dispensing of both larger,
heavier items and smaller, lighter items.
The Examiner relied on this problem, at least in part, in rejecting
claims 1–46. The secondary reference, Dragne, describes optical sensing
units 11 for counting seeds moving through seed transport ducts 12 of a
planter. (See Dragne, col. 1, ll. 4–7 & col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 7). Dragne
addresses the problem of sensing the passage of small items such as seeds
while providing an unobstructed path for the items to move past the sensor.
It teaches that each duct 12 “includes openings 12A and 12B which allow
the mounting of [a] transmitter and receiver in the openings in a manner
which maintains the duct substantially closed and does not interfere with the
flow of seeds or particles through the duct.” (Dragne, col. 5, ll. 28–32).
Dragne also addresses the problem of “dark sections (or blind spots)” that
might permit small items such as seeds to pass through the detection zone
undetected. (See, e.g., Dragne, col. 1, ll. 56–59 & col 5, l. 62 – col. 6, l. 6).
On page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious “to associate electromagnetic radiation operation with the
Schuller sensing system in order to replace the wear and failure prone
mechanical system with an accurate electronic system.” (See also Ans. 10,
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

20
11 & 30).8 Subsequently, on page 23 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that
“Dragne does teach means for sensing falling articles (col. 1, lns. 8–14),
which is also accurate (col. 6, lns. 2–6).” Column 2, lines 2–6, of Dragne
refer to Dragne’s teaching addressing the problem of blind spots that might
permit seeds to pass through the detection zone undetected. Hence, where
the Examiner uses the word “accurate” to describe optical sensors, the

8 The Examiner finds that “the existence of friction, and the effects it
has on moving mechanical parts, would [have] be[en] known to the skilled
artisan in the absence of the ‘Maldanis Declaration.’” (Ans. 21 & 22). To
the extent that this statement is an exercise of Official Notice, it is a
reasonable exercise. (See Decision 12 (“[T]he fact that interacting moving
parts are subject to frictional wear is susceptible of instant and
unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.”)). The Patent Owner
does not appear to contest this fact. (See, e.g., Reh’g Req. 4 (“Those
vending machines have numerous mechanical devices, including dozens of
spiral-driven dispenser mechanisms, rotating delivery bin doors and rotating
security plates that swing into position as the bin door is pushed open. All of
these mechanical items are subject to friction and wear, but the electronic
detection boards remain prone to failure, even in the absence of friction.”)).

Finding of Fact 13 on page 11 of the Decision may be fairly read as
suggesting that we sustained a finding that “it [was] also generally
understood that ‘electronic’ systems, i.e. systems without moving parts or
with few moving parts, [were] less subject to wear and potential failure
compared to ‘mechanical’ systems, due to an absence of such wear and
failure prone parts.” In view of the testimony in paragraph 23, on pages 5
and 6 of the “Declaration of Sharon F. Shull,” executed May 17, 2001, the
Examiner has not proven that electronic devices, such as optical vend-
sensing systems, are less prone to failure than mechanical vend-sensing
systems. The Decision did not rely on such a finding as a reason or
motivation supporting the conclusion that the subject matter of the appealed
claims would have been obvious. (See, e.g., Decision 27, l. 10 – 28, l. 3). I
do not understand my colleagues to rely on such a finding as a reason why
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious.
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

21
Examiner is referring to the capacity of the optical sensors to correctly sense
the passage of both large and small objects. The Examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious “to associate electromagnetic radiation operation
with the Schuller sensing system in order to replace the wear and failure
prone mechanical system with an accurate electronic system” (Ans. 6)
means that it would have been obvious to replace Schuller’s
electromechanical system with an optical system capable of sensing the
passage of both larger and smaller items (See Ans. 21).

Dragne
Dragne describes optical sensing units 11 for counting seeds moving
through seed transport ducts 12 of a planter. (See Dragne, col. 1, ll. 4–7 &
col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 7). Each of Dragne’s optical sensing units 11 includes
a light transmitter 15 and a receiver 16. Dragne’s light transmitter 15
includes a plurality of light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) 29 mounted on a base
wall 23 of a ceramic transmitter housing 22. (See Dragne, col. 5, ll. 39–48;
& Figs. 3 & 4). Dragne’s light receiver 16 includes a photo silicon diode 32
in the form of an elongated strip mounted on a base wall 23 of a ceramic
receiver housing 22. (See Dragne, col. 6, ll. 7–9; & Figs. 3 & 4). A
microprocessor 13 controls the light transmitter 15 and the light receiver 16.
(See Dragne, col. 5, ll. 15–25; & Figs. 2 & 3). An optical system such as
that described by Dragne counts seeds 38 by sensing pulses generated by
momentary reductions in light intensity (as compared to a steady state
intensity) caused by the passage of seeds falling between the light
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

22
transmitter 15 and the receiver 16; and then by counting the pulses to obtain
a seed count value. (See Dragne, col. 1, ll. 8–14).
Dragne’s microprocessor 13, along with a control circuit 17, controls
the intensity of light transmitted by the light transmitter 15 by modulating
the pulse width and frequency of current pulses supplied to the LEDs. (See
Dragne, col. 5, ll. 19–21 & col. 7, ll. 1–18). More specifically, the
microprocessor 13 modulates the current passing through the control
circuit 17 so as to provide current to the LEDs 29 in the form of a train of
square wave pulses. The microprocessor 13 controls the intensity of light
emitted from the LEDs 29 by controlling the pulse width and duty cycle of
the current pulses. (See Dragne, col. 7, ll. 1–18). Dragne teaches that the
“microprocessor [13] generates the pulse signal having a duty cycle
determined by an algorithm within the microprocessor. The algorithm used
determines the condition present at power up and determines the duty cycle
to bring the receiver [16] to the optimum level.” (Dragne, col. 7, ll. 14–18).
As mentioned earlier, Dragne addresses the problem of sensing
structure obstructing the path of movement of small items such as seeds. It
teaches that each duct 12 “includes openings 12A and 12B which allow the
mounting of the transmitter and receiver in the openings in a manner which
maintains the duct substantially closed and does not interfere with the flow
of seeds or particles through the duct.” (Dragne, col. 5, ll. 28–32). Dragne
also addresses the problem of “dark sections (or blind spots)” that might
permit seeds to pass through the detection zone undetected. (See, e.g.,
Dragne, col. 1, ll. 56–59 & col 5, l. 62 – col. 6, l. 6; & Ans. 11). Dragne
teaches fixing the depth of the base wall 23 into the housing 22 such that the
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

23
conical beams transmitted by the LEDs 29 would tend to intersect within the
potting material 31. Dragne additionally teaches that, if the depth of the
base wall 23 into the housing 22 were sufficient, the light emerging from the
surface of the housing would not contain any dark sections or blind spots
which were less illuminated; and no seed or particle would escape detection
by passing through dark areas between beams transmitted by two of the
LEDs 29. (Dragne, col 5, l. 62 – col. 6, l. 6; & Figs. 3 & 4).
I find that the Examiner has not proven that more than a minimal
amount of external ambient light, if any, penetrates the seed transport ducts
12 in which Dragne’s optical sensing units 11 reside. The Patent Owner’s
expert witness correctly points out that Dragne describes the seed transport
ducts 12 as “substantially closed.” (See McAlexander Decl. 9, citing
Dragne, col. 5, ll. 28–32). In addition, the Patent Owner’s expert has
demonstrated expertise in the electronics industries (see McAlexander Decl.
1); and has provided a plausible explanation within the scope of his expertise
as to how “ambient light” might be generated within Dragne’s optical
sensing units 11 without exposure to external ambient light. (See
McAlexander Decl. 13).
Nevertheless, Dragne addresses the problem of operating an optical
sensing unit in the presence of ambient light, regardless whether the ambient
light is external ambient light or ambient light originating within the optical
sensing unit. (See, e.g., Dragne, col. 5, ll. 55–61; col. 6, ll. 22–24; & col. 8,
ll. 20–23). More specifically, it teaches two techniques for filtering out the
effects of ambient light. First, Dragne teaches the use of a transmitter 15
including LEDs 29 that emit infrared light at a frequency outside the
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

24
anticipated frequency spectrum of the ambient light. Both the LEDs 29 of
the transmitter 15 and the photo silicon diode 32 of the receiver 16 are
potted in a material 31 containing a pigment for filtering light outside the
infrared range. (See Dragne, col. 5, ll. 44–60; col. 6, ll. 7–24; & Fig. 3).
Dragne also teaches the use of a DC compressor circuit to filter changes in
the steady state current emitted by a transistor 34 coupled to a photo diode
32 (that is, in the DC component of the signal generated initially by the
receiver 16) due to ambient light. (See Dragne, col. 7, l. 62 – col. 8, l. 23 &
Fig. 5; see also id., col. 5, ll. 60–63).9
The Patent Owner’s expert has identified differences in the sources of
external ambient light and ambient light originating within the optical
sensing unit (see McAlexander Decl. 13), but has not articulated any
persuasive physical difference between internal and external ambient light. I
find that Drange’s teachings would apply to the filtering of the effects of
either external ambient light or ambient light originating inside the optical
sensing unit.

9 Dragne also describes a process by which the duty cycle of pulsed
current supplied to the LEDs 29 may be optimized at when an optical
sensing unit 11 is powered up. (See Dragne, col. 7, ll. 1–38). Although this
process may broadly be described as a calibration, it cannot compensate for
changes in ambient light intensity while the optical sensing unit is operating.
Having reconsidered the findings in the Decision regarding the description at
column 7, lines 1–38 of Dragne, I find that Dragne’s teachings regarding this
optimization process would have been of limited value to one of ordinary
skill in the art seeking to install an optical vend-sensing system in a location
exposed to ambient light of varying intensity entering through a transparent
front window or panel of a vending machine. (See Reh’g Req. 9–11).
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

25
The Patent Owner characterizes the DC compressor circuit as a filter.
(See, e.g., Reh’g Req. 11). I agree. To the extent that the Patent Owner
wishes to imply that the DC compressor is not a calibrating (that is, a self-
adjusting) circuit, I also agree. Nevertheless, the Patent Owner has not
shown that the DC compressor circuit is inoperative for the purpose of
filtering the effects of ambient light.
Dragne teaches that:
In operation, when the steady state current is low, the diodes
[48, 49] conduct little current through the DC compressor so the
impedance of the load, defined by the DC compressor and the
load resistor 41, is constituted by the load resistor and it thus
maintained relatively high. As the steady state current
increases, the current through the diodes is increased so that the
load seen by the current emerging from the transistor [34] is
decreased thus maintaining the voltage V1 [that is, the voltage
signal output by the DC compressor circuit] at an automatically
biased, substantially constant level. In other words, when the
current is very low the DC compressor is in effect turned off so
that the loads seen by the current is equal to the high impedance
of the resistor 41. When the current is increased, the DC
compressor turns on so that the load seen by the increased
current is equal to the combination of the impedance of the DC
compressor and the load resistor 41 which has a total
impedance significantly less than that of the load resistor 41
thus maintaining the voltage V1 at a lower level. The DC
compressor therefore automatically controls the voltage V1 so
that it is maintained at a preferred level for application to the
remaining parts of the analysis circuit as described hereinafter.
(Dragne, col. 7, l. 66 – col. 8, l. 19 & Fig. 5). One may reasonably infer that
this non-linear behavior of the DC compressor circuit is due to the behavior
of the two non-linear components of the circuit, namely, the diodes 48, 49.
Once the diodes 48, 49 “turn on,” their impedances will be approximately
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

26
linear. Within this linear range, the DC compressor circuit will filter out at
least a portion of the DC component of the signal emitted by the transistor
34. I find, contrary to the testimony of the Patent Owner’s expert (see
McAlexander Decl. 10 & 11), that the DC compressor circuit would
compensate for both the effects of slowly-varying ambient light and the
scattering of light internally by dust and the like while operating in its linear
range.
Dragne also teaches that the “frequency range of the LEDs and the
receiver is arranged to be in the infrared range so as to be different from the
ambient light.” (Dragne, col. 5, ll. 55–57). Dragne further teaches that both
the LEDs 29 of the transmitter 15 and the photo diode 32 of the receiver are
potted in a potting material 31 that “contains a pigment which tends to filter
light outside the infrared range [that is, outside the range of excitation
frequencies] so as to make the system less responsive to ambient light.”
(Dragne, col. 5, ll. 58–61; see also id., col. 5, ll. 53–55 & col. 6, ll. 22–24).
The Patent Owner argues that CD compressor circuit cannot “detect”
ambient light because ambient light cannot penetrate the potting material 31.
(See App. Br. 16, citing McAlexander Decl. 11 & 12). This argument is not
persuasive. Dragne describes the potting material as merely “tend[ing] to
filter light outside the infrared range,” thereby making the system “less
responsive to ambient light.” (Id., col. 5, ll. 58–61). Even assuming that
Dragne uses the term “ambient light” to refer only to light outside the
infrared range, Dragne acknowledges that some of the ambient light may
reach the photo diode 32 despite the pigment in the potting material 32. The
potting material 31 is not a perfect filter. The intensity of ambient light may
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

27
affect the DC component of the output of the photo diode 32 as well as the
signal emitted by the transistor 34. Therefore, I find Dragne’s statement that
the “DC compressor thus filters out changes in steady state current which
can be due to ambient light,” as well as other factors such as dust (Dragne,
col. 8, ll. 20–23), persuasive.

Levasseur
Levasseur describes a vending machine including a control circuit 20
and a sensor device 148 located on a product delivery means or chute so as
to respond when a product that is to be delivered by the machine passes
through the product delivery means or chute. Levasseur teaches that the
sensor might be either mechanical, electromechanical, photoelectric or
optical, among a small number of other alternatives (See Levasseur, col. 7,
ll. 48–58; see also id., col. 2, ll. 44–46 and col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 14),
thereby suggesting the interchangeability of a mechanical or
electromechanical sensor, on the one hand, and a photoelectric or optical
sensor, on the other, for at least some purposes (see Ans. 15).

Endl
Endl describes a safety device including an optical sensor for a
machine used in a manufacturing operation. (See Endl, col. 2, ll. 35–39 and
col. 6, ll. 24–29.) In a manufacturing operation, the optical sensor is subject
to exposure to external ambient light, such as light from incandescent or
fluorescent lights. (Cf. Endl, col. 6, ll. 47–53 (describing the modulation of
ambient light produced by incandescent and fluorescent lamps)). Endl
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

28
teaches that the “sensitivity of photoelectric systems to ambient light has
long been a problem” (Endl, col. 6, ll. 19–20; see also Ans. 16), particularly
for a sensor required to sense the passage of small objects with accuracy.
More specifically, Endl teaches that:
Prior multiple light beam system[s] have depended on a
variation in the total light received to detect the interruption of a
beam. The received light is converted into an electrical signal
which may be amplified and the level of the signal used to
provide an output. To respond to a small object, the setting of
the level sensor is quite critical. Changes in the ambient light,
temperature, humidity, aging of components and the like may
cause false signals.
(Endl, col. 1, ll. 7–15).
Endl teaches that it was “common to provide shielding around the
light sensor to restrict the light reaching it to that which is emitted by the
associated light source.” (See Endl, col. 6, ll. 20–23). On the other hand,
Endl also taught that:
Where the [optical sensing] system operates in a brightly
lighted area, as is usually the situation in a manufacturing
operation, it is impractical to screen the photo sensor from all
ambient light; and it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the
system so that it is not triggered by changes in the ambient light
level. The use of a pulsed light source permits electrical
filtering of the sensor output which substantially eliminates all
ambient light effects.
(Endl, col. 6, ll. 24–31). Endl observes that ambient light from artificial
sources such as incandescent and fluorescent bulbs powered by
commercially available, alternating current power sources typically have
relatively low pulse rates. It teaches coupling the light detectors 140 used to
sense interruption of light beams to amplification circuit that filter out the
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

29
low frequency portion of the output signal attributable to ambient light. (See
Endl, col. 6, ll. 31–60).

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRIOR ART
AND THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE
The Examiner correctly finds that “Schuller teaches all claimed
elements/features except for the sensing system operating optically and with
a calibration circuit.” (Ans. 6) That said, the Patent Owner points out that
one of ordinary skill in the art could not have obtained the claimed subject
matter merely by substituting an optical sensing system such as that
described by Dragne for the electromechanical sensing system described by
Schuller. (See App. Br. 19). For example, the Examiner has not shown that
the size of a seed transport duct 12 as described by Dragne was comparable
in size to the vend space of a transparent front vending machine. Some
level of effort and expense would have been required to scale the sensing
system taught by Dragne up to the dimensions required to span the vend
space of a transparent front vending machine. Apart from this problem of
scale, Dragne described a system for counting seeds flowing through a seed
transport duct. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to adapt the teachings
of Dragne to the problem of sensing that a product had been dispensed, one-
at-a-time, within a vending machine would have had to modify the signal
processing circuitry of Dragne. (See App. Br. 19). Proof that the subject
matter of the appealed claims would have been obvious would require the
articulation of a reason or motivation for modifying the vending machine
described by Schuller sufficiently compelling to justify the level of effort
and expense likely required to carry out the modification.
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

30

LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
In order to properly evaluate the evidence in this case, one must
reorient one’s thinking from what the various devices described in the prior
art were capable of doing when considered in hindsight, to what one of
ordinary skill in the art knew those devices to be capable of doing at the
pertinent time. The record supports a finding that one of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art was a person with engineering training and experience in the
design of vending machines. Levasseur describes the use of an optical
delivery sensor, albeit within a closed chute. (See Levasseur, col. 7, ll. 48–
58). Likewise, Percy (US 5,651,476, issued July 29, 1997) and Truitt (US
5,927,539, issued July 27, 1999) describe optical delivery sensors used in
closed-front vending machines. (See Percy, col. 3, ll. 49–62 & Fig. 1; Truitt,
col. 4, ll. 48–61 & Fig. 1). Tanaka (JP H04-52284 U, publ. May 1, 1992)
describes a product detection device for a vending machine including a light
projector that projects a beam of light parallel to a bottom surface of a
receiving tray to sense the presence or absence of a vended item in the
receiving tray. (Tanaka 4–5). Kawarazuka (JP H10-11639 A, publ. Jan. 16,
1998)10 describes an optical vend-sensing system located near a product
retrieval door (“exhaust port door” 23) at the base of a product delivery

10 Kawarazuka appears to be prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),
having been published over two months prior to the earliest claimed priority
of the ʼ915 patent. Although the Examiner did not cite Kawarazuka in the
rejections on appeal, it was cited in the “Statement Pointing Out Substantial
New Questions of Patentability,” dated December 10, 2010, at 28; and is
evidence of record bearing on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.2d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
31
chute 17, below product dispensing spirals 15. (See Kawarazuka, paras. 13
& 15–18). Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar
with the use of optical vend-sensing systems in vending machines, at least
within product delivery chutes or other shaded areas; and would have had
reason to familiarize himself or herself with the design and operation of
optical sensing systems.
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF PATENTABILITY
To this point, I have disagreed little with my colleagues’ findings. I
do disagree with their assessment of the objective evidence in this appeal,
however.
Licensing Evidence
Eight of the Patent Owner’s competitors, including the Requester,
have taken licenses under patents including the ’915 patent. (See App. Br.
11; see also Reh’g Req. 21; “Declaration of Sharon F. Shull,” executed May
17, 2011 (“Shull Decl.”), paras. 14–22). The Patent Owner has provided
redacted copies of these license agreements. These eight licensees appear to
include all of the Patent Owner’s substantial competitors (See Shull Decl.,
para. 19).
Unlike my colleagues, I find that there exists a substantial nexus
between the licenses and the subject matter claimed in the ʼ915 patent. This
finding is not based on the content of the license agreements alone, but also
on the content of two advertisements appended to the Appeal Brief as
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

32
Attachments 2 and 3.11 In particular, the first of these advertisements,
Attachment 2 to the Appeal Brief, was for a SUREVEND product delivery
sensor. The undated advertisement stated that the SUREVEND sensor, which
was “a standard feature on all NV spiral equipment,” guaranteed the delivery
of products to the consumer. According to the advertisement, the
SUREVEND sensor provided features including “automatic self-calibration—
no adjustment is necessary” and “works in all lighting conditions” (leading
capitals omitted). In addition, the advertisement included an expanded view
of the lower portion of the product dispensers of a glass front vending
machine featuring a package of snack food items falling through a planar
array of simulated infrared beams. The expanded view was captioned
“successful vend is detected when falling product breaks infrared beams”
(leading capitals omitted).
The first advertisement, in particular, indicates that at least one
licensee, the Requester, considered the use of an optical sensing system in a
transparent front vending machine to be of commercial importance. The
advertisement placed special emphasis on the provision of “automated self-
calibration” that permitted the sensor to work in all lighting conditions. This
advertisement indicates that the Requester regarded these features as

11 I find these advertisements, and particularly that reproduced as
Attachment 2, more persuasive of nexus than the post hac, non-specific
testimony of John Hens, a distributor of the Patent Owner’s machines, that
he “immediately perceived [at a trade show ten years previous] that the
introduction of [the Patent Owner’s] optical vend detection system as an
industry changing event, a profound step forward;” or that he “understood
that the addition of a reliable vend detection system would make a real
difference to vending machine operators and the response [he] saw at the
tradeshow [ten years previous] was all positive.” (Hens Decl., para. 7).
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
33
commercially important, thereby bolstering the Patent Owner’s argument
that the licenses are probative of the patentability of the subject matter of the
appealed claims. (See Reh’g Req. 20).
The timing of the licenses suggests that pending litigation against at
least two of the licensees might have influenced the decision of the others to
take licenses. Three of the licenses attached to the Shull Declaration were
dated within a year after consent decrees were entered against at least two of
two of the Patent Owner’s competitors, Automatic Products and USI, in
response to lawsuits involving related Patent US 6,384,402. Another license
attached to the Shull Declaration was dated nineteen months after the
consent decrees were entered against the two competitors. (See Shull Decl.,
para. 16 & Tabs A–G). Nevertheless, the timing of the licenses must be
balanced against the fact that the entire industry took licenses under the
Patent Owner’s patents.
Commercial Success
Sharon Shull, the President of the Patent Owner, declares that the
Patent Owner was a start-up company having no customer base in 1998.
(See Shull Decl., paras. 1 and 11). The Patent Owner introduced a
transparent front vending machine having an optical vend-sensing system at
a trade show in the spring of 1998. No other manufacturer of glass front
vending machines at the time offered a machine having an optical vend-
sensing system. (See Shull Decl., paras. 2 and 9; “Declaration of John
Hens,” executed March 16, 2009, para. 6). John Hens testified that his
business became a distributor for the Patent Owner and its SENSIT vending
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

34
machines almost immediately after the product introduction. (Hens Decl.,
para. 8).
Shull further declares that the Patent Owner’s sales in 1999 increased
approximately 294% over its 1998 sales levels; and that the Patent Owner’s
sales in 2000 increased another 60% over its 1999 sales levels. (See Shull
Decl., para. 12). Testifying in 2011, Shull declares that the Patent Owner
“has sold well over 50,000 units since 1998, netting [the Patent Owner] tens
of millions of dollars in revenue.” (Shull Decl., para. 12). Apart from these
sales, Hens testifies that his business retrofits optical vend-sensing systems
manufactured by inOne Technologies, Inc., a licensee of the Patent Owner,
into refurbished machines. (Hens Decl., para. 11).
The testimony of Ms. Shull at paragraphs 2–6 of the Shull Decl.,
while not a limitation-by-limitation comparison between the appealed claims
and the machines sold by the Patent Owner, convinces me by a
preponderance of the evidence that the machines embodied the subject
matter of the claims. (See Reh’g Req. 20). In particular, I note Ms. Shull’s
testimony that the machines, as first introduced, stored items to be vended
“such that [the products could] be viewed through the vending machine’s
transparent front” (Shull Decl., para. 2); that, “[w]hen purchased by the
customer, the selected product [was] advanced forward, over the edge of the
storage tray, to fall through the delivery passage” (id.); and that the sensing
system “reliably detect[ed] the passage of products as they [fell] through the
product delivery passage having a depth largely defined by the distance
between the transparent front glass and the front edge of the product storage
trays” (id., para. 3). Ms. Shull does not indicate that these basic features
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1

35
were changed in later versions of the machines. As such, I am persuaded
that there exists a substantial nexus between the sales and growth figures, on
the one hand, and the claimed subject matter, on the other.
Furthermore, the fact that the Patent Owner’s competitors took
licenses to the ʼ634 patent, among others, indicates that the competitors
believed that the subject matter claimed in those patents was of competitive
value. The competitors’ willingness to pay money for access to this
technology suggests that those competitors believed the Patent Owner’s
exclusive right to sell vending machines embodying the technology
threatened their sales and market shares. One may reasonably infer, on this
basis, that the technology contributed to the Patent Owner’s commercial
success. Nevertheless, the weight to be given to the sales and growth figures
must be discounted for the fact that the figures do not indicate in absolute
terms how many sales were made during the first few years after the
introduction of the machines incorporating the SENSIT systems; or how
much market share, if any, those machines took from competitive machines
not embodying the claimed subject matter.

ANALYSIS
I also disagree with my colleagues’ balancing of the evidence and
ultimate conclusion. As mentioned earlier, Schuller describes a transparent
front vending machine. Schuller’s vending machine uses an
electromechanical vend-sensing mechanism that renders the machine
unsuited for the sale of relatively small or relatively light items. (See
McAlexander Decl. 8). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
36
obvious “to associate electromagnetic radiation operation with the Schuller
sensing system in order to replace the wear and failure prone mechanical
system with an accurate electronic system.” (See Ans. 6; see also id. at 30).
By “accurate,” the Examiner refers to the problem of providing a vend
sensor capable of spanning a vend space large enough to accommodate
relatively large products, yet capable of sensing whether relatively small or
relatively light products have been dispensed into that space. (See Ans. 23,
citing Dragne, col. 6, ll. 2–6). This is a problem with which the named
inventor was involved. (See ʼ915 patent, col. 2, ll. 35–41; Reh’g Req. 14).
Dragne is not non-analogous, as it is reasonably pertinent to this
problem. Dragne addresses the problem of “dark sections (or blind spots)”
that might permit seeds to pass through the detection zone undetected. (See,
e.g., Dragne, col. 1, ll. 56–59 & col 5, l. 62 – col. 6, l. 6; Ans. 17 (Dragne
teaches a detection method using an optical sensor generating infrared
radiation in planar or curtain form creating a detection region through which
a falling object passes.”)).
Optical sensing is one of a very limited set of mechanisms known for
use in detecting the movement of items in a vending machine. (See, e.g.,
Levasseur, col. 7, ll. 51–58). Nevertheless, the record indicates that vending
machine designers prior to the named inventor used optical sensing systems
only in shaded areas of the vending machine, such as product delivery chutes
(see Levasseur, Percy & Truitt) or within a retrieval bin (see Tanaka &
Kawarazuka). (See Reh’g Req. 5 & 6).12 This is consistent with Endl’s
12 These vending machines are excluded from the scope of the claims on
appeal by the “freely falling” and “vend space” language of claims 1–46.
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
37
teaching in the field of optical sensing systems that changes in ambient light
can cause such systems to output false detection signals. (See Endl, col. 1,
ll. 13–15). Common sense dictates that the presence of ambient light would
have been a significant problem for one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to
install an optical sensing system near a transparent front window or panel of
a vending machine. (Cf. Reh’g Req. 14 (identifying the problem with which
the inventor was involved as “how to detect a single, freely-falling dispensed
product of varying sizes that has been dispensed from one of a plurality of
spaced-apart (horizontally and vertically) product holding trays in a
transparent front vending machine where ambient light enters that vend
space through the transparent front in order to determine if a vend has
occurred.”)).
The fact that Dragne is not non-analogous art does not imply that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized its optical sensing system
to be a solution to the problem of providing a vend sensor capable of
spanning a vend space large enough to accommodate relatively large
products, yet capable of sensing whether relatively small or relatively light
products have been dispensed into that space; or that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have had a reasonable expectation that an optical sensing unit
like that described by Dragne could be adapted to successfully solve the
problem. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art was a designer or
manufacturer of vending machines. The prior art taught the use of optical
sensing systems in vending machines to detect product delivery through
chutes or to detect the arrival of a product in a retrieval bin. These teachings
imply that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
38
familiarize himself or herself with optical sensing systems. That fact does
not imply that one of ordinary skill in the art of designing and manufacturing
vending machines was an expert in optical sensing systems.
As the Patent Owner points out, Dragne described a device intended
for use in the field of agricultural equipment, not vending machines. (See
Reh’g Req. 15). The optical sensing system described by Dragne was
designed to count seeds moving through seed transport ducts. It was not
designed to sense the dispensing of products, one-at-a-time, from dispensing
mechanisms in vending machines. (See App. Br. 19). Dragne described
optical sensing systems including various measures capable of addressing
the problem of ambient light, including external ambient light. That said,
the Examiner has not proven that the optical system described by Dragne
was subject to external ambient light when resident in its seed transport duct.
The fact that the optical sensing system described by Dragne included
various measures capable of addressing the problem of ambient light,
including external ambient light, does not imply that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized those measures as capable of successfully
filtering out the ambient light entering through the transparent front window
or panel of a vending machine. Although the optical sensing system
described by Dragne, which used arrays of LEDs to generate excitation light
(see Dragne, col. 5, ll. 39–48 & Figs. 3 & 4), might have been scaled up
from the size of the seed transport ducts of Dragne to the vend space of a
transparent front vending machine, it is not clear that one of ordinary skill in
the art had sufficient expertise with optical sensing systems to recognize the
possibility.
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
39
This uncertainty must be considered in the context of the objective
evidence presented by the Patent Owner. The only prior art of record
describing the use of optical sensing systems in vending machines used
those sensing systems either in retrieval bins below the front panels of
vending machines or in closed chutes within the machines, where ambient
light was not as substantial an issue. After the effective filing date of the
ʼ915 patent, the Patent Owner experienced growing sales and succeeded in
licensing the entire industry. The Requester’s advertising, or at least those
advertisements appearing in Attachments 2 and 3 to the Appeal Brief,
indicate that the claimed subject matter was valuable precisely because of
the ability of the claimed subject matter to address the problem of
conducting optical vend-sensing notwithstanding the ambient light admitted
through a transparent front window or panel of a vending machine. In
particular, the Requester’s advertisement reproduced in Attachment 2 touted
the ability of the Requester’s optical vend-sensing system to work “in All
Lighting Conditions and Temperatures;” and the ability of that sensing
system to perform “Automatic Self-calibration.”
This commercial success and licensing evidence indicates, albeit
circumstantially, that one of ordinary skill in the art lacked the skill
necessary to recognize the capacity of optical sensing systems such as those
described by Dragne and Friend to address the problem of providing a vend
sensor in a transparent front vending machine capable of spanning a vend
space large enough to accommodate relatively large products, yet capable of
sensing whether relatively small or relatively light products have been
dispensed into that space. Conversely, the objective evidence demonstrates
Appeal 2013-006814
Reexamination Control 95/000,607
Patent No. US 7,171,915 C1
40
industry recognition of the inventive nature, or at least the commercial value,
of the subject matter after the fact. Based on my review of the record as a
whole, I am not persuaded that the combination proposed by the Examiner
would have been obvious; or that claims 1–46 were properly rejected.
Therefore, I dissent.

Patent Owner:
Peter W. Gowdey
Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey
LLP
8300 Greensboro Dr. Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
Third Party Requester:
Daniel E. Venglarik
Munck Carter LLP
600 Banner Place Tower
12770 Coit Road
Dallas,TX 75251