Ex Parte JeongDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201612476394 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/476,394 0610212009 23373 7590 07/01/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jin-woo Jeong 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. Ql 12557 5363 EXAMINER YU,ARIELJ 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte JIN-WOO JEONG Appeal2014-005366 1 Application 12/476,3942 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision refers to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Nov. 25, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 31, 2014), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 18, 2013) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 30, 2014). 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2014-005366 Application 12/476,394 Introduction Appellant's disclosure relates to "a vending machine and a control method thereof, and more particularly, to a vending machine which has a display unit, and a control method thereof' (Spec. i-f 2). Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A control method of an electronic machine which has a display module to display an image stored therein or inputted from an outside device, the control method comprising: detecting that a door of the electronic machine is open; and changing an image screen of the display module accommodated in the door in response to the detection that the door of the electronic machine is open, wherein the changing comprises displaying a certification mode window provided to certify a user of the electronic machine. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Rejections on Appeal The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honma (US 2005/0254849 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005), Johnson (US 5,986,543, iss. Nov. 16, 1999), and Lin (US 2006/0111160 Al, pub. May 25, 2006). 2 Appeal2014-005366 Application 12/476,394 2. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honma, Johnson, Lin, and Shimakata (JP 2009015474, pub. Jan. 22, 2009). 3. Claims 10, 18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honma, Johnson, Lin, and Holmes (US 2008/0010871 Al, pub. Jan. 17, 2008). ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Lin fails to disclose "the display module accommodated in the door," as recited by independent claim 1, i.e., "'changing an image screen of the display module accommodated in the door in response to the detection that the door of the electronic machine is open"' (Appeal Br. 10). The Examiner relies on the flip phone of Lin for this limitation (Final Act. 7 ("Lin teaches a door which accommodates a display unit"); Ans. 5). We conclude that that a flip phone cover would be beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation of a "door," as recited. To the extent that the Examiner is relying on the car door of Johnson for the recited door, and relying on the flip phone of Lin solely for the teaching of "accommodation," i.e., for the teaching that a display may be placed on a moveable part, such a combination, however, cannot be readily distinguished from hindsight. We conclude that the Examiner's stated rationales of optimization (Final Act. 4) and "meet[ing] different operation requirements" (Ans. 6) lack sufficient articulated basis to combine the flip phone of Lin with the car door of Johnson. The Examiner does not provide additional evidence or reasoning to remedy the deficiency therein. 3 Appeal2014-005366 Application 12/476,394 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent claim 11 contains similar language and requirements as independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims, for the same reason as independent claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation