Ex Parte de Gruil

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2011

11857492 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RASMUS DE GRUIL
____________

Appeal 2010-011111
Application 11/857,492
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011111
Application 11/857,492

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-30. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to improvements in the performance
and utilization of customer operated terminals (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim
1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A computer implemented method for use in a
supervisor terminal that monitors one or more customer
operated terminals and that provides transaction information
used to increase the utilization of the one or more customer
operated terminals, the method comprising:
receiving activity data for each of the one or more
customer operated terminals;
processing the activity data to create the transaction
information for the one or more customer operated terminals;
and
continuously displaying on the supervisor terminal at
least a part of the transaction information.

Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Neil McGlone, Fujitsu introduces grocery industry's
first software application for real-time self-checkout lane management,
Fujitsu Transaction Solutions, Inc., 1-2 (Apr. 29, 2004)
(http://www.fujitsu.comlus/news/pr/ftxs_20040429.html) (last visited Nov.
20, 2008) (hereinafter “McGlone”) in view of Huffman (US Pub. No.
2002/0178048 A1, pub. Nov. 28, 2002).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-011111
Application 11/857,492

3
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of McGlone and Huffman renders obvious independent claim
11 (App. Br. 4-8). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact
and analysis, as set forth on pages 10-12 of the Examiner’s Answer. The
“transaction data from each lane” of McGlone corresponds to the recited
activity data (p. 1). The “utilization reports” and “detailed[] graphical
report” generated from the “transaction data” of McGlone correspond to the
recited transaction information (pp. 1-2). The “mobile device such as the
iPAD” used by management to view the “detailed[] graphical report” of
McGlone corresponds to the recited supervisor terminal (p. 2). Huffman is
solely cited for disclosing “continuous displaying” (paras. [0002], [0005]).
All other aspects are cited as being disclosed by McGlone. See In re Merck
& Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the argument that a single
reference alone does not disclose the recited claimed steps is not persuasive
because nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references”).

1 In setting forth our analysis, we choose independent claim 1 as
representative, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-011111
Application 11/857,492

4
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-30 is AFFIRMED.
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

hh