Ex Parte Jo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2011

10029240 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/029,240 12/28/2001 Seong Jin Jo LT-0009 5026
34610 7590 04/28/2011
KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. Box 8638
Reston, VA 20195
EXAMINER
FISCHER, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEONG JIN JO
____________

Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final
rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appellant claims a method of managing use of electric appliances
(Specification 1:6-7). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of managing use of a rental home appliance,
comprising:
receiving information on a use of the rental home
appliance through a communication network;
calculating a charge for the use of the rental home
appliance based on the received use information; and
transmitting the calculated charge to a user's terminal
through the communication network.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kuroda US 5,757,643 May 26, 1998
Ginter US 2004/0133793 A1 Jul. 8, 2004

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected Claims 1-14 and 19-291 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Ginter.

1 We group claims 19-29 under the 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) rejection as there
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

3
The Examiner rejected claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ginter and Kuroda.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-14 and 19-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) over Ginter as anticipating receiving information on a use of
a home rental home appliance, calculating a charge for the use, and
transmitting the charge to a user’s terminal, since Ginter discloses a VDE
system for permitting a user to be charged for a home appliance, such as a
washing machine, according to usage of the appliance, even though Ginter
also discloses the use of the VDE system for controlling access to electronic
content?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Ginter discloses a system (“VDE”-virtual distribution environment) for
managing payment for appliance usage, because “VDE also securely
supports the payment of money owed (including money owed for content
and/or appliance usage) by one or more parties to one or more other
parties, in the form of electronic credit and/or currency.” (¶ [0092]).
2. Ginter discloses that through the VDE system “electronic appliances can
be ‘leased’ or otherwise provided to customers who, rather than

appears to be some confusion as to what rejection was applied by the
Examiner, and thus we defer to Appellant’s understanding given that the
record should have been clear on this point.
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

4
purchasing a given appliance for unlimited usage, may acquire the
appliance (such as a VCR, television, microwave oven, etc.) and be
charged according to one or more aspects of use.” (¶ [2350]).
3. Ginter discloses transmitting the calculated charge to a user’s terminal
by invoicing a customer through:
... a collection of events [that] may describe a financial
transaction between the creator(s) of an administrative object
and the recipients, such as a purchase, a purchase order, or an
invoice. Each event record 872 may be a set of instructions to
be executed by the end user's electronic appliance 600 to make
an addition or modification to the end user's secure database
610 …
(¶ [1130]).
4. Ginter discloses that that VDE may control a washing machine, because a
VDE control device, appliance 600, may be connected to a host system
2608, and “[h]ost 2608 may, for example, be almost any device
imaginable, such as a computer, a pay telephone, another VDE electronic
appliance 600, a television, an arcade video game, or a washing machine,
to name a few examples.” (¶ [1835]).
5. Ginter discloses that an appliance under VDE control may be activated
by a start signal because “[e]lectronic appliances under control of VDE
represent VDE ‘nodes’ that securely process and control; distributed
electronic information and/or appliance usage, control information
formulation, and related transactions.” (¶ [0093]).
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

5
6. Ginter discloses that the control device, electronic appliance 600, is a
personal computer, because “electronic appliance 600 may be practically
any kind of electrical or electronic device, such as: a computer …” (¶
[0453-0454]).
7. Ginter discloses entering and authenticating unique numbers for
appliances, utilizing:
… an extremely secure encryption/decryption technique be
used as an aspect of authenticating the identity of electronic
appliances 600 that are establishing a communication channel
and securing any transferred permission, method, and
administrative information. In the preferred embodiment, the
encrypt/decrypt engine 522 includes both a symmetric key
encryption/decryption circuit (e.g. DES ...”
(¶ [0506]).
8. Ginter discloses that VDE utilizes subscriber numbers, stating, “to
control access to clearinghouses, users are assigned account numbers” (¶
[2107]).
9. Ginter discloses billing after each use, at Figure 45, below:
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

6

Figure 45 of Ginter showing billing after use
10. Ginter disclosing cancelling use of an appliance before subscriber has
used the appliance by “methods 310 [which] may prevent use of more
than the amount specified by a specific budget.” (¶ [0445]).
11. Ginter discloses configuration with a start button, in that:
the user is permitted to set ‘limits’ such as, for example, the
session dollar limit amount (field 2666), a total transaction
dollar limit amount (field 2668), a time limit (in minutes) (field
2670), and a "unit limit" (in number of units such as
paragraphs, pages, etc.) (field 2672). Once the user has made
her selections, she may "click on" the OKAY button (2674) to
confirm the limit selections and cause them to take effect.
(¶ [1885]).
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

7
12. Ginter discloses transmitting charge information to a user before use, by
“warn[ing] the user about the amount of expense that will be incurred by
the user’s action …” (¶ [1882]).

ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claim 1
The rejection is affirmed as to independent claim 1. The Appellant
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
claim 6 that depends from claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 falls with claim 1.
See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues:
Because the Ginter publication is completely focused on
controlling access to electronic content, such as digital music
and video files, it is respectfully submitted that the Ginter
reference cannot anticipate the method of claim 1, which recites
specific steps directed to calculating charges for use of a rental
home appliance. Nothing in the Ginter reference refers to
calculating charges for use of a home appliance.
(Appeal Br. 23).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because we find
Ginter explicitly discloses a “VDE”-virtual distribution environment- that
applies payment to “appliance usage” (FF 1). Additionally, we find Ginter
explicitly discloses the VDE system may be applied to rented appliances
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

8
where charges are based on usage (FF 2). Therefore, we find Ginter meets
the claim language through its system of billing customers for leased
appliance usage.
Additionally, we find Ginter discloses transmitting the calculated
charge to a user’s terminal through the communications network through
the invoice at the appliance 600 (FF 3).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites, in pertinent part, wherein said appliance is a washing
machine.
Appellant argues, “[b]ecause nothing in the Ginter publication
discloses or suggests any steps relating to managing use of a washing
machine, it is respectfully submitted that Ginter cannot anticipate claim 2.”
(Appeal Br. 23-24).
We find this argument unpersuasive because we find Ginter explicitly
discloses that the managed device may be a “washing machine” (FF 4).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites, in pertinent part, wherein said received use
information for calculating a charge includes at least one of a type of
washing machine, a load capacity of the washing machine, a motor type of
the washing machine, an amount of clothes to be washed, a selected washing
course program, a selected washing time, a selected number of washing
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

9
repetitions, a selected number of agitation or spin cycles, and a number of
rinsing repetitions.
Appellant argues, “[b]ecause Ginter completely fails to disclose or
suggest anything related to use of a washing machine, Ginter necessarily
fails to disclose using the types of information recited in claim 3.” (Appeal
Br. 24).
We disagree with Appellant because we accept as our own the
Examiner’s finding that Ginter discloses “usage metering” (Answer 5),
which we find meets the claim language of received use information
includes a selected washing time because usage can be measured as washing
time.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites, in pertinent part, wherein the appliance is activated
by a start signal from a registered subscriber's personal computer or a
mobile terminal.
Appellant argues, “[n]othing in the Ginter publication discloses or
suggests activating a home appliance, such as a washing machine, using a
start signal from a registered subscriber's personal computer or a mobile
terminal.”
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because we find
Ginter discloses that appliances “under control of VDE” have their usage
controlled by a VDE ‘node,’ (FF 5), which we find is a personal computer
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

10
or mobile terminal (FF 6). We thus find that Ginter inherently discloses
“control” of “appliance usage” because Ginter discloses a start signal that
we find would control starting and stopping the appliance as required by the
claim.
Claim 5
The claim 5 recites, entering a subscriber number and a unique
number of the appliance through the communication network;
authenticating said subscriber number and said unique number of the
appliance; and activating said appliance if said subscriber number and said
unique number of the appliance are authentic.
Appellant argues, “nothing in the Ginter publication discloses or
suggests (1) entering a unique number of a home appliance, such as a
washing machine; (2) authenticating a unique number of a home appliance;
or (3) activating the home appliance if the subscriber number and home
appliance number are authentic.” (Appeal Br. 25).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because we find
Ginter discloses receiving and authenticating unique numbers for home
appliances (FF 7) and users (FF 8) as part of its security system, and
therefore Ginter meets the claim language.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, sending a bill for use of the
appliance after each use of the appliance to a corresponding subscriber.
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

11
Appellant argues, “[b]ecause Ginter fails to disclose or suggest
anything relating to a traditional home appliance, Ginter necessarily fails to
disclose or suggest sending a bill for use of a home appliance after each use
of the home appliance.” (Appeal Br. 25).
We disagree with Appellant and we affirm the rejection of claim 7 for
the same reasons set forth above at claim 1 to the applicability to washing
machines (FF 1, 2). We additionally find that Ginter discloses an option to
bill after each use as one of the method sequences disclosed (FF 9), meeting
the claim language about the timing of billing within the sequence.
Claim 8
We affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e). The
Appellant does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of claim 13 that depends from claim 8. Therefore, claim 13
falls with claim 8. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Claim 8 recites, in pertinent part, transmitting a start signal for a
rental home appliance identified by the subscriber number from a server
through the communication network to a corresponding subscriber's
terminal if the subscriber number is authenticated successfully; receiving
use information of the rental home appliance through the communication
network; calculating a charge for the use of the rental home appliance
based on the received use information.
Appellant argues, “As discussed above, Ginter completely fails to
disclose or suggest (1) transmitting a start signal for a rental home appliance;
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

12
(2) receiving use information for a rental home appliance; or (3) calculating
a charge for use of a rental home appliance.” (Appeal Br. 26).
We disagree with Appellant and we affirm the rejection of claim 8 for
the reasons set forth above at claims 1 (FF 1, 2) and 4 (FF 5, 6).
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites, in pertinent part, wherein said appliance is a washing
machine which is substantially similar to the language of claim 2.
Appellant argues, “Ginter is devoid of any mention of a washing
machine, or methods of managing use of a washing machine …” (Appeal
Br. 26).
We disagree with Appellant and affirm the rejection of claim 9 for the
same reasons set forth above at claim 2.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3.
Appellant argues, Ginter “fails to disclose or suggest calculating a
charge for use of a washing machine using any of the specific types of use
information recited in claim 10.” (Appeal Br. 27).
We disagree with Appellant and we affirm the rejection of claim 10
for the same reasons set forth above at claim 3.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, starting the appliance when the
start signal is received by the subscriber's terminal.
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

13
Appellant argues, “Ginter fails to disclose or suggest starting a home
appliance such as a washing machine.” (Appeal Br. 27-28).
We disagree with Appellant and we affirm the rejection of claim 11
for the same reasons set forth above at claim 4.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites, in pertinent part, entering a subscriber number and
a unique number of the appliance through the communication network;
authenticating said subscriber number and said unique number of the
appliance; and activating said appliance if said subscriber number and said
unique number of the appliance are authentic.
Appellant argues, “nothing in the Ginter publication discloses or
suggests (1) entering a unique number of a home appliance, such as a
washing machine; (2) authenticating a unique number of a home appliance;
or (3) activating the home appliance if the subscriber number and home
appliance number are authentic.” (Appeal Br. 28).
We disagree with Appellant and we affirm the rejection of claim 12
for the same reasons set forth above at claim 5.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites, in pertinent part, sending a bill for use of the
appliance after each use of the appliance to a corresponding subscriber.
Appellant argues, “Ginter necessarily fails to disclose or suggest
sending a bill for use of a home appliance after each use of the home
appliance.” (Appeal Br. 28-29).
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

14
We disagree with Appellant and we affirm the rejection of claim 14
for the same reasons set forth above at claim 7.
Claims 19 and 21
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 19 and 21. The Appellant
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
claim 21 that depends from claim 19. Therefore, we address only claim 19,
and claim 21 falls with claim 19. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Claim 19 recites, in pertinent part, receiving automatically selected
information on rental home appliance use conditions through the
communication network; calculating a charge for use of the rental home
appliance, if the subscriber number is authenticated successfully;
transmitting a start signal to the rental home appliance through the
communication network if a start request is received.
Appellant argues, “Ginter fails to disclose or suggest (1) receiving
automatically selected information on rental home appliance use conditions;
(2) calculating a charge for use of the rental home appliance; or (3)
transmitting a start signal to a rental home appliance.” (Appeal Br. 31).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm the rejection of
claim 19 for the same reasons set forth above at claims 1 and 4.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3.
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

15
Appellant argues, “[a]s noted above, Ginter completely fails to
disclose or suggest managing use of a washing machine, or receiving
information as recited in claim 20.” (Appeal Br. 31).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm the rejection of
claim 20 for the same reasons set forth above at claim 3.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites, in pertinent part, sending a bill for use of the
appliance after each use of the appliance to a corresponding subscriber.
Appellant argues, Ginter “fails to disclose or suggest sending a bill for
use of an appliance after each use of the appliance.” (Appeal Br. 32).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm the rejection of
claim 22 for the same reasons set forth above at claim 7.
Claims 23, 28, and 29
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 23, 28, and 29. The Appellant
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
claims 28 and 29 that depend from claim 23. Therefore, we address only
claim 23, and claims 28 and 29 fall with claim 23. See, 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Claim 23 recites, in pertinent part, configuring a rental home
appliance for use if said subscriber number is valid; receiving usage
information from said rental home appliance over the communication
network; calculating charge information based on said usage information.
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

16
Appellant argues, “Ginter fails to disclose or suggest (1) configuring a
rental home appliance for use; (2) receiving usage information from said
rental home appliance; or (3) calculating charge information based on said
usage information.” (Appeal Br. 32).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm the rejection of
claim 23 for the same reasons set forth at claims 1 and 5.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites, in pertinent part, transmitting said charge
information to said user after said user has used said appliance.
Appellant argues, Ginter “fails to disclose or suggest transmitting
charge information to a user after the user has used an appliance.” (Appeal
Br. 33).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm the rejection of
claim 24 for the same reasons set forth above at claim 7.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites, in pertinent part, transmitting said charge
information to said user before said subscriber has used said appliance.
Appellant argues, “Ginter fails to disclose or suggest transmitting any
sort of charge information regarding a home appliance, let alone sending
such information before a subscriber has used the home appliance.” (Appeal
Br. 33).

Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

17
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because Ginter
discloses transmitting charge information to a user before use of an
appliance in the form of a warning “about the amount of expense that will be
incurred by the user’s action” (FF 12), thus meeting the claim language.
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites, in pertinent part, cancelling use of said appliance
after transmitting said charge information to said user and before said
subscriber has used said appliance.
Appellant argues, “Ginter fails to disclose anything relating to use of a
home appliance, let alone canceling use of a home appliance before a
subscriber has used the appliance.” (Appeal Br. 34).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because Ginter
discloses that the VDE system “may prevent use of more than the amount
specified by a specific budget” (FF 10), which we find meets the claim
language, because preventing is a way of canceling before use.
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites, in pertinent part, wherein configuring an appliance
for use further comprises activating said appliance when said user pushes a
start button.
Appellant argues, Ginter “fails to disclose or suggest configuring an
appliance for use by activating the home appliance when the user pushes a
start button.” (Appeal Br. 34).
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

18
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because we find
Ginter discloses configuring when a user pushes an “OKAY” button (FF
11), which we find meets the claim language.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 15 and 17
We affirm the rejection of independent claim 15. The Appellant does
not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claim
17 that depends from claim 15. Therefore, claim 17 falls with claim 15.
See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Claim 15 recites, in pertinent part, receiving information on washing
condition program settings based on clothes inserted in the washing
machine through the communication network; calculating a charge for use
of the washing machine based on the received information; transmitting the
calculated charge to a user's terminal through the communication network.
Appellant argues, “if the disclosure of Kuroda were combined with
the disclosure of Ginter, the combination would still fail to disclose or
suggest a method that includes (1) receiving information on washing
condition program settings based on clothes inserted in a washing machine;
(2) calculating a charge for use of the washing machine based on the
received information; or (3) transmitting a start signal to a washing
machine.” (Appeal Br. 36).
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

19
We find the arguments on the calculating unpersuasive for the same
reasons set forth above at claim 1, and on the transmitting for the same
reasons set forth above at claim 4. We further find Ginter discloses billing
for usage of an appliance (FF 1), and thus find one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that certain program settings based on clothes inserted in a
washing machine, such as a heavy duty cycle, will generate longer wash
times and thus potentially higher usage charges, thus meeting the claim
language as VDE receives information about usage. Since we find that
Ginter discloses and or makes obvious the disputed claim language, we find
that the Kuroda disclosure is cumulative to Ginter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites the same information types as recited in claim 3.
Appellants argue, “Neither Ginter nor Kuroda disclose or suggest
receiving any of these items of information.” (Appeal Br. 36).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm claim 16 for the
same reasons set for above at claim 3.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites sending a bill for use of the washing machine after
each use of the washing machine to a corresponding subscriber.
Appeal 2009-011108
Application 10/029,240

20
Appellant argues, “Ginter and Kuroda fail to disclose or suggest
sending bills for use of a washing machine after each use of the washing
machine.” (Appeal Br. 37).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and affirm the rejection of
claim 18 for the same reasons set forth above at claim 7.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-14 and 19-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) over Ginter.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Ginter and Kuroda.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-29 is
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)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

MP