Ex Parte Ghafoor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

10051355 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GAMEELAH GHAFOOR, AHMAR GHAFOOR,
MARIE MACINTYRE, and ANTHONY S. HOLMES
____________

Appeal 2012-011578
Application 10/051,355
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-011578
Application 10/051,355

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-20 which are all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of
operating an automated teller machine (ATM) (Spec. 1:2-3). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. An Automated Teller Machine, ATM, comprising:
a user interface including means for identifying an account of a
user remote from the ATM from account identification information
provided by another user at the ATM on behalf of the user remote
from the ATM;
means for obtaining contact information which enables the
ATM to contact a communications device associated with the user
remote from the ATM; and
contact means for establishing a link with the communications
device to allow the user remote from the ATM to execute a
transaction using the communications device.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Foladare US 5,914,472 Jun. 22, 1999
Sadler US 6,571,218 B1 May 27, 2003
Appeal 2012-011578
Application 10/051,355

3
Drummond US 7,542,944 B1 Jun. 2, 2009

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Drummond, Sadler, and Foladare.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the findings of fact used in the Analysis section below
are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.1

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art does not individually or in combination suggest the
claimed invention (App. Br. 16). Specifically, the Appellants argue that
Drummond’s ATM is only directed to a single user, that Sadler is directed to
a self-checkout system and not an ATM, and that Foladare relates to a
different system where a parent is contacted if a child exceeds a credit limit,
and that the cited combination would not have been obvious (App. Br. 13-
16). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 4-12).
We agree with the Appellants. While Drummond at Figure 20 does
show the operation of an ATM system, it is only used by a single user at the
ATM. Sadler discloses a self-checkout system for a retail customer in which
intervention may be required for situations such as purchasing age restricted

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-011578
Application 10/051,355

4
items, voiding items, and when over-limit items are present (col. 2:32-56),
and that remote approval can take place (col. 1:10-13). However, Sadler at
these cited portions is not related to an ATM transaction by a remote user in
any way. Foladare discloses that a parent is contacted if a child exceeds
their credit limit for a transaction and can authorize a transaction (Abstract)
but this is only for approving the transaction and does not “allow the user
remote from the ATM to execute a transaction using the communications
device” in any cited manner.
Here, the claim requires that the system be used at an ATM and that
means are provided to “allow the user remote from the ATM to execute a
transaction using the communications device.” Here there is no articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings for the cited combination the rejection
of record is not sustained. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007) the Supreme Court at 418 noted that in an obviousness analysis
“[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims is not sustained. The remaining claims contain similar limitations to
those addressed above and the rejection of these claims is not sustained as
well.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Drummond, Sadler, and Foladare.
Appeal 2012-011578
Application 10/051,355

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls