Ex Parte Blake

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11055152 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/055,152 02/10/2005 John R. Blake 247171-000439USPT 2267
41230 7590 10/31/2012
CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP.
C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza
16th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN R. BLAKE
____________

Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John R. Blake (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-29, and 31-351. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to coin processing devices.
Spec., para. [0001]. Claims 1, 14, and 25 are the independent claims in this
appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method for optimizing a usable volume of a coin
receptacle associated with a coin-processing device comprising
the acts of:
receiving a plurality of coins in a coin input area of said
coin-processing device;
obtaining data for each coin from at least one sensor;
associating said data for each coin with a denomination;
depositing all of said received plurality of coins with an
associated denomination into said coin receptacle of said coin-
processing device, said coin receptacle being configured only to
securely store deposited coins until a maximum number of
coins occupy said coin receptacle; and
adjusting, responsive to said data, an upper limit of said
maximum number of coins which may be deposited into said
coin receptacle.

1 The final office action also rejects claim 30. No arguments are advanced
for or against claim 30. Therefore, claim 30 is not part of the subject matter
of this appeal.
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-9, 11-22, 24-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Adams (US 2004/0231956 A1, pub. Nov. 25, 2004) and Daout
(US 7,278,527 B2, iss. Oct. 9, 2007).
2. Claims 10, 23, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Adams, Daout, and Furneaux (US 2003/0051970 A1, pub. Mar. 20,
2003).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Adams, and Daout
Addressing claims 1-9 and 11-13, the Appellant contends that the
prior art fails to disclose:
(1) depositing all of the coins received by the coin
receptacle of the coin-processing device;
(2) the coin receptacle being configured to only
securely store deposited coins until a maximum
number of coins occupy the coin receptacle,[] and
(3) adjusting, in response to the sensor data, an
upper limit of said maximum number of coins
which may be deposited into said coin receptacle.[]
App. Br. 14. The Examiner has found that “Adams discloses receiving all
of the [sorted] coins in a receptacle through funnel (19) and into receptacle
(31).” Ans. 8. The Appellant contends that “‘a plurality of bulk coin storage
receptacles [(31-34)] . . . . From there, ‘the coins are fed into a plurality of
smaller dispensing hoppers [(46-49)].’” Id. It appears that the Appellant is
arguing coins that are fed to the hoppers (46, 47, 48, 49) cannot be counted
as having been received by the receptacles (31, 32, 33, 34). This contention
is not persuasive as all of the coins go to the receptacles (31, 32, 33, 34)
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

4
whether or not they are subsequently advanced to one of the dispensing
hoppers (46, 47, 48, 49).
Next the Appellant argues “[c]laims 1-9 and 11-13 further require that
the optimized coin receptacle be configured to only store coins, those coins
which are stored being deposited coins.” App. Br. 14. The Examiner has
determined that:
just because both Adams' and Daout's devices will
both store and dispense does not alter the fact that
storing and dispensing exist at the same time in
both devices. The claims do not preclude
application of Adams and Daout by stating
"configured to only store coins" because they [sic]
both devices are configured to only store coins if
the dispensing is never used.
Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner. Both Adams and Daout can be
operated in a manner that “only store coins.”
Finally, the Appellant argues that “Daout limits the type of a
particular currency being sent to the store, not the ‘maximum number of
[all currency] which may be deposited into’ the store, as required by claim 1,
App. Br. 16, and, “[t]he maximum number of bills (or coins) [in a store]
never changes, just the relative proportions of denominations.” App. Br.
17.
However, the Examiner counters that “the rejection only relies upon
portions of Daout that concern the concept of controlling the limiting of an
upper or lower limit of coins in a coin processing machine on a dynamic
basis, and Adams concerns the processing of coins, Applicant's claims are
considered to read on the combination of Adams and Daout.” Ans. 11. We
find the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive as the Appellant does not
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

5
properly address the combination of Adams and Daout. For the reasons
stated above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-13.
Addressing claims 14-24, the Appellant, without making any specific
arguments, recites several elements of claims 14-24. See App. Br. 20. As
no argument is presented, these statements are not persuasive. The
Appellant next argues that the combination of Adams and Daout “fail to
disclose, singly or in combination, the claimed ‘means for updating a
variable upper limit of a maximum number of coins which may be
received within said coin receptacle.’” App. Br. 14. However, as discussed
above, the Examiner has relied on Daout to teach the “concept of controlling
the limiting of an upper or lower limit of coins in a coin processing machine
on a dynamic basis.” Ans. 11. The Appellant’s argument does not apprise
us of any error in the Examiner’s finding. As such, we sustain the rejection
of claims 14-24.
Addressing claims 25-29 and 31-32, the Appellant contends that the
combination of Adams and Daout:
fail[s] to disclose, singly or in combination, the
claimed "controller" that is configured to: (1)
"calculate an upper limit of a maximum number of
additional coins permitted to be processed by said
coin processing machine" in response to "said
output of said denominated coins into said coin
receptacle," and (2) "prevent input of additional
coins into said coin processing machine when a
total number of coins stored in said coin receptacle
is substantially equivalent with said upper limit.”
App. Br. 21. However, the Examiner has found that “when Adams'
receptacles are full, no additional coins will be allowed to enter the
receptacle and the processing machine. Note that Daout also discloses
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

6
calculating an upper limit at col. 6, lines 39-61.” Ans. 12-13. Thus, the
Appellant’s arguments have failed to apprise us of any error in the
Examiner’s finding. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 25-29 and
31-32.
Addressing claims 6-7, and 13, the Examiner has found that “Daout's
apparatus still is adjusting the threshold minimum or maximum levels in the
coin stores.” Ans. 11. The Appellant contends that Daout fails “to disclose
or suggest predetermined milestones, Daout adjusts the threshold levels
dynamically according to expected change requirements (col. 4, lines 64-
67). The dynamic adjusting of threshold levels according to a variable such
as expected change requirements is not adjusting following the attainment of
a predetermined milestone.” App. Br. 23. However, the Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive as it does not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner’s finding that threshold minimum or maximum levels can be a
milestone. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 6-7 and 13.
Addressing claim 20, the Appellant states that claim 20 recites “that
the controller ‘is adapted to update a memory by output of a signal following
attainment of at least one predetermined milestone, said signal
corresponding to said variable upper limit of coins which may be received
within said coin receptacle.’” App. Br. 23. However, the only argument
presented by the Appellant is that claim 20 is allowable for the same reasons
as claims 6-7, and 13. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 for the
reasons we sustained claims 6-7 and 13.
Addressing claim 28, the Examiner has found that “Adams discloses
switch/sensor (112) illustrated at figure 14.” Ans. 12-13. The Appellant
argues that “claim 28 requires that the sensor or switch be ‘disposed within
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

7
[the] coin receptacle.’ (Emphasis added.)” App. Br. 24. Despite
Appellant’s argument, Adams discloses “[e]ach BCS receptacle 31, 32, 33,
34 has a limit switch 81 (FIG. 11) near the top of the receptacle to sense the
coin level in the receptacle, and it also has a limit switch 82 (FIG. 11) at the
bottom of the receptacle.” Adams, para. [0042]. Thus, the Examiner has
identified the switch and the specification of Adams clarifies that two
switches are positioned in the receptacle. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claim 28.
Addressing claim 31, the Examiner has found that “that a number of
coins detected by Adams' level sensor is considered to represent a
percentage-full of the receptacle.” Ans. 13. The Appellant advances no
argument to apprise us of error in this finding. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 31.
Addressing claim 32, the Appellant correctly states that claim 32
requires "a time-to-fill condition estimated by at least one of
extrapolation of a coin mix in said coin receptacle or utilization of a
look-up table for a time-to-fill corresponding to at least one of a coin
mix in said coin receptacle and an estimated coin mix." App. Br. 24-25.
The Examiner has made no finding with regard to estimating the time-to-fill
condition. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 32.
Appellant incorrectly presents arguments ostensibly contesting a
rejection of claim 33 as obvious over Adams and Daout. Claim 33 is
addressed below with respect to obviousness over Adams, Daout, and
Furneaux.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a valid
reason to combine Adams and Daout. App. Br. 25-26. The Examiner has
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

8
determined that “[a]t the time of the invention, it would have been obvious
to have incorporated method of adjusting currency levels in the receptacles
of Adams, as taught by Daout, for the purpose of maintaining inventory
levels for better throughput and handling of coin dispensing requirements.”
Ans. 4. The Appellant does not dispute this reasoning. Thus, we believe the
Examiner has presented an adequate articulation with reasonable
underpinning required.
The Appellant further argues that Adams teaches away from Daout
because the “imposition of Daout's method of adjusting currency levels
in Adams would render Adams unsuitable for its intended purpose of
dispensing a predetermined number of coins of predetermined
denominations to a specified employee's cash drawer.”. We disagree. The
Federal Circuit has held “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553 (Fed.Cir.1994)). Nothing in Adams can be said to discourage a
person of ordinary skill in the art from modifying the system by incorporated
method of adjusting currency levels in the receptacles of Adams, as taught
by Daout.
Finally, the Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to clearly
articulate the grounds for this rejection. This blanket argument is not
persuasive as the Appellant has understood the rejection well enough to
present 20 pages of specific arguments against the rejection.

Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

9
Obviousness over Adams, Daout, and Furneaux
Addressing claims 10, 23 and 33-35 the Examiner has found:
Daout does not expressly disclose, but Furneaux
discloses an ultrasonic sensor that determines a
volume of a coin receptacle. See Abstract of
Furneaux, for example, last three lines which
mention detecting the presence and width of a coin
store. At the time of the invention, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have used an ultrasonic sensor to determine the
physical features of the coin receptacle for the
purpose of determining accurately and efficiently
the dimensions of an empty coin receptacle so that
the level and amount of coins in the coin store can
be adequately determined.
Ans. 4. The Appellant first states that Furneaux “has no similarity to the
configurations of Daout or Adams and there is no suggestion or motivation
for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have made
the combination now suggested by the Examiner.” App. Br. 31. We
disagree. The Examiner has made an adequate articulation, “determining
accurately and efficiently the dimensions of an empty coin receptacle so that
the level and amount of coins in the coin store,” has rational underpinnings
to support the combination of Adams, Daout and Furneaux.
Addressing claim 10 and 23, the Appellant contends that the
“measurement of a time of flight for an acoustic impulse, as taught by
Furneaux, has no disclosed relevance to an open, disordered "pile" of coins
as is disclosed in Adams” App. Br. 31. We disagree. While the method of
Furneaux may be more accurate with the coin containers of Furneaux, the
Examiner’s articulation that the number of coins can be “adequately
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

10
determined” with the method of Furneaux appears to have a rational
underpinning. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 23.
Addressing claim 33, the Examiner has found that both “Adams and
Daout clearly disclose determining or sensing the number of coins within the
receptacle. Also note that since coins have density, the number of coins is
necessarily representative of a particular weight of coins.” Ans. 13. The
Appellant correctly challenges this finding. While it may be possible to
estimate the weight of the filled receptacle, other variables such as the
weight of the receptacle and type of coin would be required to determine
weight of coins in the receptacle. The Examiner has not presented an
adequate articulation with rational underpinning to support this finding.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 33.
Addressing claim 34, the Examiner has found “Regarding Claim 34,
note that since Adams and co-inventors are from the US, it would have been
necessarily implied that their coin processing device would be
designed to handle the denominations of a US coin set.” Ans. 13. The
Appellant advances no argument to apprise of any error in the Examiner’s
finding. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 34.
Addressing claim 35, the Examiner has found that “an ultrasonic
sensor to determine the physical features of the coin receptacle for the
purpose of determining accurately and efficiently the dimensions of an
empty coin receptacle so that the level and amount of coins in the coin store
can be adequately determined.” Ans. 4. The Appellant does not contest this
finding, or assert any argument as to why the Examiner’s rejection is in
error, apart from those asserted against the rejection of claim 25, which are
Appeal 2010-009377
Application 11/055,152

11
unconvincing, for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 35.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-29 and 31-35 is affirmed
as to claims 1-29, 31, and 34-35, and is reversed as to claims 32 and 33.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh