Ex Parte CostDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 18, 201110405017 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation