Ex Parte Kuykendall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

11227861 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

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.
11/227,861 09/15/2005 Julie L. Kuykendall 47171-00431USPT 8332
41230 7590 12/17/2012
CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP.
C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza
16th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JULIE L. KUYKENDALL, JEFFREY G. KNOLL,
ARTHUR J. LONG, and JOHN R. BLAKE
____________________

Appeal 2010-006490
Application 11/227,861
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006490
Application 11/227,861

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
The claims are directed to a system and method for automatically
filling a coin cassette. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An automated coin tray refilling system comprising:
a plurality of coin reservoirs;
a plurality of coin dispensers for regulating the
dispensing of coins from an associated one of the plurality of
coin reservoirs;
a collector point distribution member adapted to receive
coins from each of the plurality of coin dispensers at one
portion thereof and to output the coins at another portion
thereof;
an interface module having an input end disposed
substantially adjacent the collector point distribution member
output and having an output end for dispensing coins;
a coin interface tray adapted to receive at least one coin
tray; and
at least one processor;
wherein at least one of the interface module and coin
interface tray comprises a drive system configured to move a
respective one of the interface module and coin interface tray
relative to the other one of the interface module and coin
interface tray.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U .S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quattrini (US 2005/0176361 A1, pub. Aug. 11, 2005) and
Adams (US 2004/0231956 A1, pub. Nov. 25, 2004). Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-006490
Application 11/227,861

3
Claims 3, 4, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quattrini, Adams and Cole (US 6,200,213 B1, iss. Mar.
13, 2001). Ans. 4.
OPINION
Each of the independent claims involved in this appeal, claims 1, 19
and 21, requires, inter alia, a drive system configured to move the interface
module with respect to the coin tray or receiving area. The Examiner
interprets Quattrini’s supporting collar 33, which slides under manual power
across the top of Quattrini’s coin loader 20 to thereby move with respect to
brackets 22, 39 of Quattrini’s coin receiving stand 21, as the recited drive
system. Ans. 3, 5; see also Final rejection 4-5; Quattrini, para [0024].
In discussing the drive system on the interface module or coin tray,
Appellants’ Specification sets forth some specific examples of drive systems
and expressly contrasts such systems with those requiring manual operation.
Spec. pp. 13-15, paras. [0037]-[0038], [0041]. Further, without the drive
system having motive power, the claims would be incomplete as they would
not define an “automated” system or “automatic” method. Reply Br. 4. Thus,
Appellants correctly contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited
“drive system” as including Quattrini’s manually-operable supporting collar
33 simply because it allows for relative motion between the funnel 25 and
brackets 22, 39 of the coin canister stand 21 is unreasonable because such an
interpretation conflicts with the usage of the term in the Specification and in
the context of the claims. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-4. We adopt the
Appellants’ summation of the relevant and applicable law (App. Br.5-7) as
our own.
Appeal 2010-006490
Application 11/227,861

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

Klh