Ex Parte Morrison

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 2008

09217542 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
_____________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
_____________ 6
7
Ex parte JAMES MORRISON 8
_____________ 9
10
Appeal No. 2007-2077 11
Application No. 09/217,542 12
Technology Center 3600 13
______________ 14
15
Decided: February 6, 2008 16
_______________ 17
18
Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, TERRY J. OWENS, and JENNIFER D. 19
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
21
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
23
24
DECISION ON APPEAL 25
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 27-38, which are all 26
of the pending claims. 27
THE INVENTION 28
The Appellant claims a system and method for operating a self-service 29
checkout terminal. Claim 27 is illustrative:30
Appeal 2007-2077
Application 09/217,542

2
27. A method of operating a self-service checkout terminal of a 1
retail store, comprising the steps of: 2
recording a number of merchandise items for purchase by a user 3
by said self-service checkout terminal; 4
receiving movement signals from a plurality of adjoining 5
detection zones of a floor mat in a checkout floor area adjacent to said self-6
service checkout terminal in response to said detection zones reacting to a 7
weight of said user as said user walks on said detection zones by said self-8
service checkout terminal; 9
tracking directional movements of said user from said 10
movement signals by said self-service checkout terminal as said user walks 11
about said checkout floor area in any direction while using said self-service 12
checkout terminal; 13
receiving a last movement signal as said user leaves said 14
checkout floor area indicative of said user ceasing operation of said self-15
checkout terminal; 16
determining if a payment-tendered control signal was received 17
by said self-service checkout terminal indicative of said user having 18
tendered payment for said merchandise items prior to receipt of said last 19
movement signal; and 20
if said payment-tendered control signal was not received by 21
said self-service checkout terminal, determining a last direction of 22
movement of said user prior to said user leaving said checkout floor area by 23
said self-service checkout terminal, and operating a summoning device so as 24
to summon retail personnel by said self-service checkout terminal if said last 25
direction of movement was towards an exit of said store. 26
27
THE REFERENCES 28
Cotton US 4,630,110 Dec. 16, 1986 29
Addy US 6,056,087 May 2, 2000 30
(filed Sep. 29, 1997) 31
Terranova US 6,098,879 Aug. 8, 2000 32
(filed Feb. 17, 1998) 33
34
THE REJECTION 35
Claims 27-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being 36
unpatentable over Addy in view of Terranova and Cotton. 37
Appeal 2007-2077
Application 09/217,542

3

OPINION 1
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address only 2
the independent claims, i.e., claims 27 and 33. Method claim 27 requires: 3
receiving movement signals from a plurality of adjoining 4
detection zones of a floor mat in a checkout floor area adjacent to said 5
self-service checkout terminal in response to said detection zones 6
reacting to a weight of said user as said user walks on said detection 7
zones by said self-service checkout terminal; 8
tracking directional movements of said user from said 9
movement signals by said self-service checkout terminal as said user 10
walks about said checkout floor area in any direction while using said 11
self-service checkout terminal; 12
13
System claim 33 requires: 14
a floor mat including a plurality of adjoining detection zones for 15
producing movement signals in a checkout floor area in response to 16
said detection zones reacting to a weight of said user as said user 17
walks on said detection zones; 18
* * * 19
a self-service checkout terminal adjacent to said checkout floor area 20
including a computer for 21
* * * 22
tracking directional movements of said user from said 23
movement signals as said user walks about said checkout floor area in 24
any direction while using said self-service terminal; 25
26
Addy discloses “a method and apparatus for providing security 27
to a self-service checkout terminal” (Addy, col. 1, ll. 16-18). Addy 28
uses a light curtain device (24) to detect items’ insertion into and 29
removal from grocery bags (17) and positioning on and removal from 30
a post-scan set-aside surface (19b) (Addy, col. 5, ll. 51-57). Addy 31
keeps a suspicion log, and if the suspicion log exceeds a 32
predetermined threshold value a processing unit (12) causes an output 33
Appeal 2007-2077
Application 09/217,542

4

signal to be sent to a network (28) that summons the retailer’s 1
personnel (Addy, col. 17, l. 63 – col. 18, l. 1). 2
Terranova discloses “fuel dispensers and systems capable of 3
communicating with various types of transponders and detecting their 4
movement within and throughout a fueling environment” (Terranova, col. 1, 5
ll. 10-13). A transponder is carried by the customer or is mounted to the 6
customer’s vehicle (Terranova, col. 11, ll. 38-39). The customer can use the 7
transponder to pay for food along with fuel at the fuel dispenser, and if the 8
customer drives off without paying the dispenser transmits a drive-off signal 9
to the transponder and alerts the system operator (Terranova, col. 11, ll. 39-10
43; col. 34, ll. 17-24). 11
Cotton discloses a retail store surveillance system comprising a floor 12
mat having switch arrays embedded therein that detect when people enter or 13
exit the store (Cotton, col. 4, ll. 47-68; col. 10, ll. 18-29, 45-50). 14
The Examiner argues, in reliance upon Cotton’s disclosure regarding 15
figure 4, areas 46 and 47 and arrow 49, that Cotton’s floor mat can sense 16
customer movement in any direction (Ans. 9). That argument is incorrect. 17
Arrow 49 points in the direction either into or out of the store (Cotton, col. 18
10, ll. 30-35). As indicated by figure 4, movement is detected only in one of 19
those two directions. Thus, the Examiner has not established that Cotton 20
would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, 21
tracking directional movements of the user in any direction as required by 22
the Appellant’s claims. 23
The Examiner points out that Cotton discloses that movements across 24
the floor mat which, for example, can indicate a large number of people in 25
the store, can trigger video recording of merchandise commonly subject to 26
Appeal 2007-2077
Application 09/217,542

5

shoplifting (Cotton, col. 28, ll. 46-56) (Ans. 10). The Examiner argues that 1
because Cotton’s floor mat can trigger an alarm event (Cotton, col. 28, ll. 2
46-56) and Addy’s video system detects fraudulent behavior and summons 3
security personnel (Addy, col. 11, l. 55 – col. 12, l. 1; col. 17, l. 63 – col. 18, 4
l. 4), “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that 5
Addy’s self service terminal would place the [sic] Cotton’s floor mat 6
adjacent to said terminal in order to restrict the area in which to alert a 7
security personnel” (Ans. 10). Addy already summons the retailer’s 8
personnel to the self-service checkout terminal being used by a particular 9
customer (Addy, col. 17, ll. 58-63). Hence, the Examiner’s reason why one 10
of ordinary skill in the art would have used Cotton’s floor mat with Addy’s 11
self-service checkout terminal in the manner argued by the Examiner is not 12
persuasive. 13
The Examiner argues that “Terranova teaches that it is old and well 14
known in the business art the idea of triggering an alarm and summon[ing] 15
personnel when a person is walking out from a terminal without tendering 16
payment (see Terranova col 34, lines 20-30)” (Ans. 11). What that portion 17
discloses is that if a drive-off condition is detected the customer and security 18
personnel are alerted. The Examiner then argues that in view of Terranova’s 19
disclosure of triggering an alarm and summoning personnel, one of ordinary 20
skill in the art would have added Cotton’s floor mat to Addy’s system to 21
detect whether a person is walking away from the store without paying at the 22
checkout terminal and to trigger an alarm, turn on video surveillance 23
cameras and summon personnel (Ans. 11). Even assuming it would have 24
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Cotton’s floor mat to 25
Addy’s system, the Examiner has not established that Cotton would have 26
Appeal 2007-2077
Application 09/217,542

6

rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, tracking 1
directional movements of the user in any direction as required by the 2
Appellant’s claims, as discussed above. The record indicates that the 3
Examiner’s reasoning for combining the references in such a manner to 4
arrive at the claimed invention is based upon impermissible hindsight in 5
view of the Appellant’s disclosure. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, 6
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 7
(1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396 (CCPA 1960). 8
For the above reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection. 9
DECISION 10
The rejection of claims 27-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Addy in 11
view of Terranova and Cotton is reversed. 12
REVERSED 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
hh 22
23
PAUL W. MARTIN 24
NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. 25
1700 S. PATTERSON BLVD. 26
DAYTON, OH 45479-0001 27