Ex Parte Canora et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

12275062 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID J. CANORA and SCOTT W. RENCH
___________

Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David J. Canora and Scott W. Rench (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1, 3, 5–10, 13, 15–17, and 20–22 as unpatentable over
Brooke (US 6,424,884 B1; iss. July 23, 2002), and Davis (US 7,756,604 B1;
iss. July 13, 2010)1; (2) claims 2 and 18 as unpatentable over Brooke, Davis
and Kiriakides (US 5,350,082; iss. Sept. 27, 1994); and (3) claim 19 as
unpatentable over Brooke, Davis and Bartholomew (US 6,622,064 B2; iss.

1 The Examiner includes claim 11 in this ground of rejection. See Ans. 5–6.
Claim 11 has been canceled. See id. at 3; Br. 2. We consider the inclusion
of claim 11 in this ground of rejection to be an inadvertent error.

Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062

2
Sept. 16, 2003). Claims 4, 11, 12, and 14 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a self-service dispenser with
improved access control providing a variety of methods of limiting use of
the dispenser including controlling a number of fills/refills or a number of
snacks obtained from the dispenser based on the user’s identity.” Spec. para.
1; Figs. 1, 2, 5. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent.
Claims 1 and 13 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. A system for providing self-service vending of snacks or
beverages, comprising:
a self-service vending machine with a controller
selectively dispensing goods;
a token reader linked to the controller; and
a plurality of tokens each including a set of access data,
wherein the token reader reads the access data and provides the
read access data to the controller,
wherein the controller dispenses a unit of the goods based
on the read access data,
wherein the read access data includes an access code
used by the controller to determine whether one of the tokens
can be used to access the self-service vending
machine, the controller denying access when one of the tokens
is determined to not authorize access to the self-service vending
machine; and
wherein the access data comprises a defined entitlement
to access the self-service vending machine, the defined
entitlement including a counter indicating a number of units of
the goods obtainable from the self-service vending machine.

Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062

3
13. A token-based vending method, comprising:
operating a token activation module to write access data
in a data storage element of a token, the access data defining a
number of units available to a token holder;
at a dispensing location, reading the access data from the
data storage element with a token scanner;
with a controller, processing the access data to determine
whether to grant access to a good based on the available
number of units;
dispensing the good to the token holder; and
modifying the access data in the data storage element of
the token to reduce the available number of units based on the
dispensing,
wherein the good is associated with a unit value greater
than one of the units and the modifying comprises
decrementing the available number of units by the unit value.

ANALYSIS

Obviousness over Brooke and Davis

Claims 1, 3, 5–10, and 21

Independent claim 1 calls for a system for providing self-service
vending of snacks or beverages including access data having: (a) an access
code and (b) a defined (user) entitlement. Appeal Br. 19, Claims App.
Similarly, independent claim 8 calls for a token for use in accessing a
plurality of self-service vending machines including “access data comprising
an access code and a user entitlement.” Id. at 20, Claims App. The
Examiner finds that Brooke discloses access data, an access code, and a user
entitlement. Ans. 5 (citing Brooke, transponder 16 of Figs. 4, 5).2

2 The Examiner relies on Davis for disclosure of “controlling a [user’s]
access to a network of machines located in some geographical location, time
and limiting user access based on a list of potential factors.” Ans. 6.
Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062

4
Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Brooke and Davis
fail to teach or suggest the limitations of the claims. See Br. 8–15.
Specifically, Appellants contend that the access data of claims 1 and 8
requires
both access control and entitlement tracking/dispensing control
(two separate steps or actions) to control self-service beverage
and snack dispensers. With reference to Figure 2, Appellants
teach that the access data provided via a token includes an
access code field 210 and also a separate entitlement to a
particular number of units in fields 222, 224, 225. As explained
in para. [0028], the access code field 210 “may store
information useful for determining whether the token or holder
of the token may access a particular dispenser.” This is a
separate test or first test to decide whether a dispenser will be
operated to dispense. In a later step or separate test that is
performed only after/when the access test is successful (“yes,
the token allows the holder to access the machine”), the
dispenser controller queries the fields 222, 224, 225 to
determine whether available units are present in the access data
to allow the controller to trigger dispensing or vending of a
chosen product.
Br. 9.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Appellants’ Specification clearly
establishes that the access data 200 includes two separate elements (i.e., an
access code 210 and a user entitlement 220). Spec. para. 28, Fig. 2. Here,
the Examiner merely points to transponder 16 of figures 4 and 5 of Brooke
for disclosing the claimed limitations. Ans. 5. The Examiner has not
identified what in transponder 16 of Brooke the Examiner considers to be (1)
access data; (2) an access code; and (3) a user entitlement. Further, although
we acknowledge that transponder 16 of Brooke would include access data,
the Examiner has not directed us to any portion in Brooke that discusses the
access data of transponder 16, let alone, that the access data of transponder
Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062

5
16 includes both an access code and a user entitlement. Consequently, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that the combined
teachings of Brooke and Davis render obvious the system or token device
called for in respective independent claims 1 and 8.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 8 and their respective dependent claims 3, 5–7, 9,
10, and 21 as unpatentable over Brooke and Davis cannot be sustained.

Claims 13, 15–17, 20, and 22

Independent claim 13 calls for a token-based vending method
“wherein the good is associated with a unit value greater than one of the
units.” Appeal Br. 21, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Brooke
discloses the units as claimed. Ans. 7.3 Specifically, the Examiner finds that
currency are units, [Appellants] example of an item costing
more [than] one unit is no different [than] a vending machine
where items are assigned a unit value in dollars that differs
from one to the next. If the machine sells 6 items for 1 dollar
each and 2 items are sold for 1.5 dollars each this is the same
unit relationship as claimed.
Id.
Appellants contend that

claim 13 includes the limitation of “wherein the good is
associated with a unit value greater than one of the units” and
the decrementing is by the unit value. As cited by the
Examiner, Brooke teaches that beverage has a dollar value and
when dispensed to the user, the user’s credit amount or dollar

3 The Examiner relies on Davis for disclosure of “controlling a [user’s]
access to a network of machines located in some geographical location, time
and limiting user access based on a list of potential factors.” Ans. 6.

Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062

6
value is reduced by the dollar value (purchase price). There is a
one-to-one correlation between the dollars associated with the
purchase price and the dollars of the credit amount. There is no
teaching that a good may have “a unit value greater than one of
the units” as a dollar equals a dollar.
Br. 16.

Appellants’ argument is persuasive. The Specification describes that
[t]he snack dispenser 374 may be used to dispense snacks such
as candy, chips, gum, and so on that have a single unit value or
may be used to dispense snacks with more than one unit value.
Hence, in some embodiments, the controller 370 determines
from the access data 357 (with or without accessing the user
record 344 associated with the token 354) what type of
entitlement the user has and how many unit counts are
available. Based on this information, the controller 370 may
allow the user to access a snack with a first unit value
associated with it and/or to access any snack (or snacks with a
second unit value). For example, a user may have 2 units
available in their entitlements, and the dispenser 374 may
contain snacks with a 1-unit value and a 2-unit value. The user,
in the case, would be allowed to vend any snack in the
dispenser, whereas if the user only had 1 unit available based
on their unit count in their entitlements the controller 370 may
act to only allow vending of the 1-unit snacks.
Spec. para. 35 (emphasis added), Fig. 3; see also Br. 7. In other words, a
user with an entitlement unit count of 1 unit would not have vending access
to a good having a unit value of 2 (i.e., a good with a unit value greater than
the unit). Similarly, a person with a dollar (unit) would not have vending
access to a good valued at two dollars (unit value) (i.e., a good with a unit
value greater than the unit). We agree with Appellants that “[s]uch an
arrangement is not shown by Brooke.” Br. 16. Consequently, the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case that the combined teachings of
Brooke and Davis render obvious the token-based vending method called for
Appeal 2012-010759
Application 12/275,062

7
in independent claim 13.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 13 and its respective dependent claims 15–17, 20, and 22
as unpatentable over Brooke and Davis cannot be sustained.

Obviousness over Brooke, Davis and Kiriakides or Bartholomew

Claims 2, 18, and 19

Claim 2 depends directly from claim 1. Claims 18 and 19 depend
indirectly and directly, respectively, from claim 13. The Examiner’s
rejection of (1) claims 2 and 18 as unpatentable over Brooke, Davis, and
Kiriakides (see Ans. 6–7); and (2) claim 19 as unpatentable over Brooke,
Davis, and Bartholomew (see Ans. 7) is based on the same deficient findings
and conclusions discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and
13. The addition of Kiriakides or Bartholomew is not relied upon to remedy
the deficiencies of Brooke discussed above. Accordingly, for similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 2 and 18 as
unpatentable over Brooke, Davis, and Kiriakides; and (2) claim 19 as
unpatentable over Brooke, Davis, and Bartholomew.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–3, 5–
10, 13, and 15–22.

REVERSED

Klh