Ex Parte Herwig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12359460 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/359,460 01/26/2009
107681 7590 07/01/2016
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nathaniel Christopher Herwig
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13677-U02 4464
EXAMINER
CHEIN, ALLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATHANIEL CHRISTOPHER HERWIG
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,4601
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention relates to "[a] transaction station with an
enhanced user interface." (Spec i-f 4.)
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 16
is representative and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is NCR Corporation.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
16. A method of completing a transaction comprising:
establishing a first area and a second area of a touch screen
by a processor of a transaction station, wherein the processor
displays information involved in completing a transaction in the
first area and information not involved in completing the
transaction in the second area; and
varying the locations of the first area and the second area
during the transaction by the processor initially locating the first
area adjacent to a first peripheral involved in the initial stage of
the transaction to direct consumer attention to the first peripheral
by the processor, and then subsequently locating the first area
adjacent to a second peripheral involved in a subsequent stage of
the transaction.
REJECTIONS
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dejaeger (US 6,456,981 Bl, iss. Sept. 24, 2002) and
Block (US 7 ,552,868 B 1, iss. June 30, 2009).
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dejaeger, Block, and Smith (US 7 ,392,948 B2, iss.
July 1, 2008).
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dejaeger, Smith, Block, and Official Notice.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dejaeger, Smith, Block, and Brenhouse (US 7,672,871 B2, iss. Mar. 2,
2010).
2
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
Claims 16 and 17
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 16 and 17 together. We elect claim 16.
Claim 17 stands or falls with claim 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
The Examiner finds that Block discloses the "varying" step of
claim 16. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Block discloses a display screen and adjacent function keys,
where the display shows a message, function and arrow
associated with active keys. (Block, figs. 5-10). As shown in
cited figures, as different function keys (peripherals) are active,
messages and text in the display screen shift dynamically to bring
user attention to them.
(Final Action 4.) Additionally, the Examiner determines that "[b ]roadly
interpreted, a 'peripheral' could be any interface for user interaction with the
system." (Answer 4.)
1A .. ppellant argues that Block's function keys
do not appear to constitute either a first peripheral and [sic] a
second peripheral as claimed by the claim where a first
peripheral, such as a scanner with scale 40, for example, involved
in a first stage of the transaction, such as scanning of goods
during self-checkout, and a second peripheral, such as a payment
peripheral, such as the card reader 42, used in a second stage of
the transaction, such as payment, are employed. . . . Even if the
function keys are considered a peripheral, they would
collectively appear to comprise a single peripheral used over and
over with multiple different screens with the same key or keys.
(Appeal Br. 10.)
The Specification states that "transaction peripherals 18 include
whatever peripherals are necessary considering the purpose of transaction
station 10." (Spec. i-f 18.) This does not, however, define the term
3
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
"peripheral." Appellant essentially asks us to interpret the term "peripheral"
so as to exclude a keyboard. However, Appellant directs us to no persuasive
evidence in the Specification or elsewhere to support such an interpretation.
(See Appeal Br. 10.)
Applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the term "peripheral"
includes "an external hardware device, as a keyboard, printer, or tape drive,
connected to a computer's CPU." (http://www.kdictionaries-
online.com/Dictionary Page.aspx? Application Code= 18#&&Dictionary Entry
=peripheral&SearchMode=Entry, last visited June 16, 2016.)
Appellant also asks us to conclude that the function keys "comprise a
single peripheral." (Appeal Br. 10.) Figures 5-10 of Block, cited by the
Examiner (Final Action 4 ), show eight function keys - four keys to the left of
the "visible output" and four keys to the right. (Block, Figs. 5-10.)
Appellant does not persuasively argue why, e.g., two separate keys or
keyboards should be considered as the same peripheral any more than two
separate printers should be considered as the same peripheral, particularly
where, as shown in Block, one set of keys, i.e., one keyboard, is physically
separated from the other set of keys, i.e., a second keyboard. (See id.)
Appellant next argues that
[t]he rationale for combining Block with Dejaeger set forth at the
top of page 5 of the final Official Action is purportedly "the
motivation of providing 'improved user input capabilities'.
(Block, col. 2, Ins. 15-20)". However, following this rationale,
one would simply add the function keys of Block to the
touchscreen of Dejaeger. Such an arrangement would follow the
purported motivation, but would simply add unnecessary
redundancy. . . . [T]his recited rationale for obviousness must
be rejected.
(Appeal Br. 10-11.)
4
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
"Dejaeger is directed towards a retail terminal and system for
displaying advertisements during checkout. (Dejaeger, Abstract, Fig. 1 )."
(Final Action 3.) The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figures 5-10 of
Block show that as the "different function keys (peripherals) are active,
messages and text in the display screen shift dynamically to bring user
attention to them." (Answer 4.) The Examiner determines that
"[ d]ynamically highlighting active peripherals to a user would result in
'improved user input capabilities'" and that "[i]t would have been obvious to
[one of] ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
combine Dejaeger with the proximity information of Block with the
motivation of providing 'improved user input capabilities.' (Block, col.2,
lns.15-20)." (Id.) We find that highlighting active peripherals (keys) for the
user provides more than "unnecessary redundancy." (See Appeal Br. 11.)
In view of the above, Appellant has not persuaded us that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Dejaeger and Block to achieve the claimed invention. See, e.g.,
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claims 1--8, 11, 13-15, and 19
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
1. A transaction station comprising:
a housing;
at least a first peripheral and a second peripheral spaced
apart in the housing;
a touch screen mounted across the housing and extending
above the first peripheral and the second peripheral, the touch
screen including a display for displaying information and a touch
overlay for recording operator selections; and
5
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
a processor for executing transaction software, wherein
the transaction software causes the display to display information
relevant to the first peripheral on a portion of the touch screen
above the first peripheral and to display information relevant to
the second peripheral on a portion of the touch screen above the
second peripheral, and receives the operator selections from the
touch overlay during a transaction.
Claim 1 is rejected under § 103 in view of Dejaeger, Block and Smith.
"Smith is directed towards a product identifier system employing a display
that runs the length of a shelving space. (Smith, Abstract; Fig. I)." (Final
Action 9.) The Examiner determines that
[i]t would have been obvious to combine Dejaeger with the
elongated display of Smith, because all the claimed elements
were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have
combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no
change in their respective functions, and the combination would
have yielded predictable results.
(Id. at 9-10.)
1A .. ppellant argues that "Smith describes a display for identifying
different products" and that "[a] display as in Smith cannot 'display
information relevant to the first peripheral' where no peripherals appear to
be contemplated by Smith." (Appeal Br. 12.) Thus, Appellant argues, "the
rationale relied upon for combining Dejaeger and Smith fails." (Id.)
The Examiner answers, and we agree, that Smith
is cited merely for the proposition that a screen may be of an
elongated form factor and extend across a housing. . . . The
examiner respectfully submits that replacing the rectangular
form factor of the touchscreen of Dejaeger with a long form
factor of Smith (which also displays messages to the user
identifying adjacent objects) would not change their respective
functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable
6
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
(Answer 5.)
In view of the above, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner
error with regard to claim 1. Appellant argues claims 1-8, 11, and 13-15
together. Therefore, claims 2-8, 11, and 13-15 fall with claim 1.
With regard to claim 19,2 Appellant additionally argues that the
rejection of claim 19 incorrectly states that Smith discloses "the touch screen
extends above all of said peripherals" but that Smith "shows none of the
claimed peripherals of claim 19." (Appeal Br. 12-13.) Therefore, Appellant
argues, Smith "can provide no basis for modifying Dejaeger." (Appeal
Br. 13.)
Appellant misinterprets the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner
states that
Dejaeger is cited for the proposition that that a screen may be
situated above accompany'ing inte1face devices. Smith is cited
for a horizontally elongated screen that displays
information/instructions in sections of the screen for items that
are proximal to the section of the screen. Although Smith
discloses that the display lies below the items it is describing, it
is believed that it would an obvious design choice to place the
display of Smith ABOVE the items it is managing, per the
arrangement of Dejaeger.
2 Claim 19 recites:
19. The transaction station of claim 1 wherein the first
peripheral comprises a bar code scanner and the second
peripheral comprises a bagging station with a security scale, and
further peripherals comprise a card reader, a cash acceptor and a
receipt printer, and the touch screen extends above all of said
peripherals.
7
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
(Final Action 20, emphasis added.) In view of the above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19.
Claims 18 and 203
Appellant separately argues claims 18 and 20.
Claim 18 recites: "The transaction station of claim 3 wherein the
second peripheral is a payment peripheral and the information relevant to the
second peripheral directs the operator to select a payment method."
Appellant argues that
it may be "old and well known in the art for a self-service
checkout terminal to display instructions for how to pay for
purchase", does not make it obvious that information relevant to
a bar code scanner is displayed in a first area, as in claim 3 from
which claim 18 depends, and then the display information moves
to a second area related to the second peripheral which is a
payment peripheral as in claim 18.
(Appeal Br. 13, emphasis added.) Claim 18 depends from claim 3 which
depends from claim 2 which depends from claim 1. None of claims 1, 2, 3,
or 18 requires display information to move to a second area. Appellant's
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and, therefore, is
not persuasive of error with regard to claim 18.
Claim 20 recites: "The transaction station of claim 19 wherein the
processor causes the display to display a graphic directing attention to each
peripheral as each peripheral is needed during the transaction."
3 The Appeal Brief includes a topic subheading of "Claims 9, 10, 12, 15,
and 20." (Appeal Br. 13.) However, under that topic subheading, arguments
are only presented with regard to claims 18 and 20. (Id.)
8
Appeal2014-000165
Application 12/359,460
Appellant argues that "[a]s indicated at col. 5, lines 42-46 of
Brenhouse, the displays of Figs. 2A-2D all appear on display 56. The
graphic images do not move with relation to the peripherals with respect to
which they relate." (Appeal Br. 13, emphasis added.)
The Examiner answers, and we agree, that "[ c ]laim 20 as written does
not appear to require that the graphic images 'move with relation to the
peripherals with respect to which they relate'." (Answer 8.) Appellant's
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and, therefore, is
not persuasive of error with regard to claim 20.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
committed reversible error in rejecting claims 1-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9