Ex Parte Inderrieden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

12697469 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/697,469 02/01/2010 Michael Thomas Inderrieden 09-740 2078
107681 7590
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
EXAMINER
ELAHI, TOWFIQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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 MICHAEL THOMAS INDERRIEDEN and GREG SCOTT EGAN
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,4691
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22.
Claims 3,5, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over
the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify NCR Corporation as the real party in interest. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,469
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a self-
service system with user interface positioning which accommodates drive-
through vehicles of different heights. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A self-service system for drive-through venues
comprising:
a stationary touch screen for displaying transaction
information and recording operator selections in a user
interface, the dimensions of the touch screen sufficient to
display the user interface in one of a range of locations on the
touch screen;
a vehicle sensing system including an imaging device
that captures at least one image of a vehicle adjacent to the self-
service system;
position determining software, executable by at least one
processor of a computer of the self-service system, that receives
information from the vehicle sensing system, the information
including the at least one image of the vehicle adjacent to the
self-service system, and analyzes the received information to
map at least one location point represented in the received
information;
position adjustment software, executable by the at least
one processor of the computer of the self-service system, to
receive data representative of the mapped at least one location
point from the position determining software to position the
user interface within the touch screen based on the mapped at
least one location point at a height above ground which
substantially coincides with a window height above the ground
of a vehicle adjacent the user interface;
wherein:
the height of the user interface is within a
predetermined range of possible heights of the user
2
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,469
interface corresponding to different window heights of
different vehicles;
the position adjustment software positions the user
interface in a portion of the touch screen less than all the
touch screen and sizes the user interface based on
information received from the positioning [sic]
determining software corresponding to a window height
of the vehicle adjacent to the self-service system.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6—9, 15, 16, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dev et al. (US 2004/0158499
Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2004) and Rekimoto (US 6,414,672 B2, issued July 2,
2002). (Non-Final Act. 2—11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dev, Rekimoto, and Wagenhals (US 2010/0057612
Al, pub. Mar. 4, 2010). (Non-Final Act. 11—12.)
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dev, Rekimoto, and Padula et al. (US 5,644,119,
issued July 1, 1997). (Non-Final Act. 12—14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Padula and Tweed et al. (US 2009/0265644 Al,
pub. Oct. 22, 2009). (Non-Final Act. 14—16.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief present the following issues:2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 2, 2015); the Non-Final
3
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,469
First Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Dev and Rekimoto teaches or suggests the limitations of independent
claims 1 and 15. (Br. 11—13.)
Second Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Padula and Tweed teaches or suggests the limitations of independent
claims 21 and 22. (Br. 13.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final
Act. 2—16) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Amended
Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—6). We concur with the applicable conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
First Issue
In finding Dev and Rekimoto teach or suggest the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Dev of
a graphical user interface allowing a user to select desired items through a
drive-through data-entry-terminal located on-site at a restaurant, and on the
disclosure in Rekimoto of a touch screen which displays a menu at an
appropriate height depending on the position on the screen touched by the
user — for example, one menu positon for an adult and another, lower,
Office Action (mailed Oct. 1, 2014); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
May 19, 2015) for the respective details.
4
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,469
menu position for a child. (Non-Final Act. 2—6; Dev Abstract, Figs. 6A, 6B,
8,1149, 72; Rekimoto Figs. 1, 6, 10, col. 12,11. 11-13, col. 13,11. 35-50.)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in relying on this combination
because “Rekimoto is completely incompatible with drive thru interfaces.”
(Br. 12.) We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. “A reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that
of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). The Examiner finds: “Rekimoto
disclosed each and every limitation that primary reference Dev lacks.
Rekimoto and Dev both disclosed touch screen system.” (Ans. 3.) The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant inquiry is
“what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
Appellants also argue Rekimoto does not teach or suggest the position
determination or position adjustment limitations of the claims, including
resizing the user interface in response to position determination. (Br. 12.)
Appellants’ argument is conclusory and unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner’s reliance on the disclosure in Rekimoto:
[Pjosition adjustment software, positions the user interface in a
portion of the touch screen less than all the touch screen and
sizes the user interface in based on information received from
5
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,469
the positioning determining software corresponding to a user
height in Fig. 10 and also in col. 13, line 35-50, FIG. 10 shows
a state that an adult person and a child are performing
manipulations on ... an adult person tends to appear in a lower
region in the detection image information than that of a child.
Therefore Rekimoto disclosed the concept of adjusting window
height of user interface based on user height calculated from the
ground level, in a way in which captures the inventive concept.
(Ans. 4.) We note that Appellants do not provide any reply to this
explanation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15.
Second Issue
With respect to independent claims 21 and 22, Appellants argue
“Padula does not determine a reference point or height of the vehicle by a
camera . . . .” (Br. 13.) We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Padula at least teaches or suggests this limitation. We agree with the
Examiner’s following finding:
Padula disclosed in col. 4, line 8-18 the means to determine the
position of the vehicle relative to the automated refueling
system ... ultrasonic Rader i.e. sensor system col.3, line 41-43,
means to determining location of the vehicle relative to system,
i.e. a vehicle reference point, teaches sensor determining a
height associated with a reference point on a vehicle positioned
laterally as FIG. 3.
(Ans. 5—6.) We note this finding is unrebutted by a Reply.
6
Appeal 2016-004611
Application 12/697,469
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1 and 15 over Dev and Rekimoto, and of independent
claims 21 and 22 over Padula and Tweed.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 6—9, 16, and
18 over Dev and Rekimoto, of claims 4 and 19 over Dev, Rekimoto, and
Wagenhals, and of claims 12 and 13 over Dev, Rekimoto, and Padula, which
rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Br. 12.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—9, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18, 19, 21, and 22.
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
7