Ex Parte Cost

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 18, 2011

10405017 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MEI, INC.
____________________

Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by an Appellant, whose real party in
interest is MEI, Inc. (“MEI”), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

References Relied on by the Examiner
A.G. Blomquist et al. (“Blomquist”) 3,175,873 Mar. 20, 1965
Frystak 4,049,257 Sept. 20, 1977
Lafevers et al. (“Lafevers”) 4,447,097 May 8, 1984
Shyu 6,651,979 Nov. 25, 2003

Fick et al. (“Fick”)2 DE 4200186 July 15, 1993

The Rejections on Appeal3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Fick.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fick and Shyu.

2 References in this opinion to page and line numbers of Fick are to the
English translation of that document that is of record and dated January
2008.

3 The Examiner submitted an Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
February 7, 2008 and a Supplement Examiner’s Answer (“Supp. Ans.”)
dated April 1, 2008 containing revisions to the sections “(1) Real Party in
Interest” and “(9) Grounds of Rejection” that appeared in the initial Answer.
Each of the Examiner’s submissions includes a rejection of claims 25 and
26. Claims 25 and 26, however, were canceled during prosecution of MEI’s
patent application and are not on appeal.
Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

3
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fick and Frystak.
The Examiner rejected claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fick and Lafevers.
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fick, Lafevers and Blomquist.

The Invention
The invention relates to a pressure plate assembly for storing
currency, such as stacks of bills, i.e., “paper currency, banknotes, coupons,
tokens, smart cards, debit cards, credit cards and security documents and the
like.” (Spec. 1:3-5; 4:25-27.)
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below (App. Br. 9 Claims App’x.):
1. An assembly comprising:

a currency cassette;

a pressure plate;

a plurality of gears rotatably connected to at least two opposite
edges of the pressure plate; and

a plurality of substantially parallel racks attached to the
currency cassette, the racks configured to engage a plurality of the
gears.
B. ISSUE
Did the Examiner correctly find that Fick discloses a pressure plate
assembly having “a plurality of gears rotatably connected to at least two
opposite edges of the pressure plate”?
Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

4
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the United States
Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) should only limit the claim based on
the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly
disclaim the broader definition. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.
E. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 as anticipated by Fick
and claims 8 and 20-24 as unpatentable over Fick and one or more of Shyu,
Frystak, Lafevers, and Blomquist.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9 are argued collectively with independent claim
1. Claim 1 calls for an assembly including a pressure plate and “a plurality
of gears rotatably connected to at least two opposite edges of the pressure
plate[.]” (App. Br. 9 Claims App’x.)
The Examiner found that Fick discloses a pressure plate (element 48)
and a plurality of gears (elements 54) which are rotatably connected to two
opposite edges of the pressure plate. (Supp. Ans. 2:12-14.) MEI does not
dispute that Fick’s element 48 is a pressure plate or that elements 54
constitute a plurality of gears. The dispute centers on the claim feature that
the plurality of gears must be “rotatably connected to” opposite edges of the
pressure plate.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at
Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

5
1324. Moreover, absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the
USPTO should only limit the claim term based on the specification or
prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader
definition. Id. at 1325. MEI has pointed to no such express disclaimer and
we have located none.
Accordingly, the term “rotatably connected to” means nothing more
than that the two referenced components are connected and that the
connection provides for rotation of one with respect to the other. In the
context of claim 1, the term requires simply that the connection of a plurality
of gears to the opposite edges of the pressure plate allows for rotation of the
gears with respect to the edges of the pressure plate. A direct contact
between the gears and the plate itself is not required, and the gears do not
have to rotate directly on the plate. The claim term at issue also does not
prohibit inclusion of intervening components between the plate’s edges and
the gears. There need not be rotatable parts positioned immediately at the
plate’s edges and the connection to the plate’s edges may be formed
indirectly through an intermediate structure. That interpretation is
reasonable and also not inconsistent with MEI’s specification.
Fick discloses a currency storing and dispensing device having a
contact plate 48 which forms a portion of contact carriage 44. (Fick 2:2-6;
6:15-16.) The contact carriage includes a plurality of drive wheels or gears
54 mounted within the contact carriage. (Id. at 6:17-18.) The gears are
driven by a motor 50 so as to rotate along gear racks 56. (Id.)

Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

6
Fick’s Figure 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the configuration
of contact carriage 44, contact plate 48, and gears 54:

Figure 1 depicts a paper sheet dispensing device according to
Fick’s invention.

As shown in the figure above, gears 54 are mounted to the side
portions of carriage 44. The side portions are in turn connected to opposing
side edges of contact plate 48 which are adjacent to gear tracks 56. When
gears 54 rotate along tracks 56, carriage 44 and contact plate 48 are moved
in the direction shown in the figure above by double arrow 28. (Id. at 6:14-
15.) Thus, gears 54 are rotatably connected to the edges of contact plate 48
via the opposing side portions of carriage 44. That is adequate to meet the
claim feature of “a plurality of gears rotatably connected to at least two
opposite edges of the pressure plate.”
Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

7
The Examiner correctly determined that Fick anticipates MEI’s claim
1. We sustain the rejection of that claim. MEI does not argue the
patentability of claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9 apart from claim 1. We also sustain
the rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9 as anticipated by Fick.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 20-24 as unpatentable over Fick
and one or more of Shyu, Frystak, Lafevers, and Blomquist. Each of claims
8 and 20-24 are ultimately dependent on claim 1. MEI contends that the
argument it made in connection with claim 1 is also applicable to claims 8
and 20-24. For the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1, we
reject MEI’s argument as applied to claims 8 and 20-24.
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 20-24 as unpatentable over
Fick and one of Shyu, Frystak, Lafevers, and Blomquist.
F. CONCLUSION
The Examiner correctly found that Fick discloses a pressure plate
assembly having “a plurality of gears rotatably connected to at least two
opposite edges of the pressure plate.”
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fick is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fick and Shyu is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fick and Frystak is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fick and Lafevers is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-015322
Application 10/405,017

8
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fick, Lafevers and Blomquist is affirmed.

TME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1022