Ex Parte Goodwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2013

11032352 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN C. GOODWIN, III and TERRY L. ZIMMERMAN
___________

Appeal 2011-001949
Application 11/032,352
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001949
Application 11/032,352

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John C. Goodwin, III et al., (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 6 and 9-14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is a system for displaying information by an electronic
price label. Spec. 2:5-7.
Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
6. A method of displaying information by an
electronic price label comprising:
(a) dividing the information into ranges;
(b) determining first information within a first
range being displayed by the electronic price label;
(c) determining second information more recent
than the first information in a second range;
(d) determining whether the first information
equals the second information;
(e) if the first information does not equal the
second information,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Apr. 8, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 3,
2010).
Appeal 2011-001949
Application 11/032,352

3
determining whether the first and second
ranges are equal, and
if the first and second ranges are not equal,
sending a message to the electronic price label
containing the second information and a command
to display the second information instead of the
first information; and otherwise
if the first and second ranges are equal,
allowing the electronic price label to continue
displaying the first information even though the
first information is not so accurate as the second
information.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Goodwin, III US 6,397,199 B1 May 28, 2002

The following rejection2 is before us for review:
1. Claims 6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
unpatentable over Goodwin, III.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Goodwin, III describes a method which obtains
first information displayed by the electronic price label and determines
whether the first information is equal to the second information.

2 The Examiner withdrew the non-statutory double patenting rejection of
claim 6. Ans. 7.
Appeal 2011-001949
Application 11/032,352

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Goodwin, III describes a system which determines whether to
display a new price and/or other terms, such as rental return date (col.
3, ll. 43-45,) on an electronic price label by comparing current
inventory levels to threshold inventory levels. See Abstr., Fig. 3, col.
1, l. 47 – col. 2, l. 9 and col. 4, ll. 29-60.
2. Goodwin, III does not describe the electronic price label displaying
inventory levels.

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument (Br. 6-8) that the
Examiner erred in finding claims 6, 9, and 10 anticipated by Goodwin, III.
Claim 6 recites a method that includes steps: “(b) determining first
information within a first range being displayed by the electronic price
label” and “(d) determining whether the first information equals the second
information.” The first information in step (b) is the same information being
used in step (d). We find that the Examiner has failed to establish that
Goodwin, III describes these steps. While Goodwin, III describes a system
that determines whether inventory level information is equal, Goodwin, III
does not describe the inventory level information “being displayed by the
electronic price label.” See FF 1-2. Goodwin, III displays price or other
terms on the electronic price label, while comparing inventory level
Appeal 2011-001949
Application 11/032,352

5
information to determine whether the display on the electronic price label
should be updated. Id.
Independent claims 9 and 10 recite similar limitations. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 6, 9, and 10, and claims 11-14, dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Goodwin, III is reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6 and 9-14 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh