Ex Parte Sanches

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2014

12004359 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte RICARDO F. SANCHES
__________

Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, MARK NAGUMO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of
claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to improvements in self-service
terminals (Spec. 1:3–4).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A self-service terminal comprising:
a Web client for connecting to a Web server remote from the terminal,
the Web client being operable to render information to a customer of the
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

2
terminal and to parse commands received from the Web server to control a
transaction flow of the self-service terminal;
a display for presenting the rendered information to the customer;
at least one customer interface device for interfacing with the
customer under control of the Web client; and
an error recovery agent executing on the terminal and operable to
monitor the Web client to detect any failure of communication with the Web
server, and in the event of a failure (i) to take control of the display and the
at least one customer interface device from the Web client, (ii) to return
inserted media to the customer (iii) to inform the customer about a resolution
of any pending transaction when the failure occurred, and (iv) to inform the
Web server of actions taken regarding the pending transaction.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being unpatentable over Drummond et al. (US 2003/0126084 A1,
published July 3, 2003) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 8,066,180 B2,
patented Nov. 29, 2011).
2. Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drummond.

REJECTION (1)
Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1 (App. Br. 8–10).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err finding that the combined teachings
of Drummond and Ishiguro would have suggested the subject matter of
claim 1? We decide this issue in the negative.

Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
Regarding rejection (1), the Examiner finds Drummond teaches the
subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an error recovery
agent that monitors a Web client to detect any failure of communication with
the Web server (Final Off. Act. 3–4). The Examiner finds that Ishiguro
discloses an error recovery agent executing on the terminal (i.e., card reader)
to monitor a web client to detect any failure of communication with the Web
server (Final Off. Act. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to monitor a Web client for communication failures as taught by
Ishiguro with the device as disclosed by Drummond in order to provide a
card processor capable of autonomously determining to address and suppress
damages to a minimum in case the transmission from a host system has
stopped due to some problems (Final Off. Act. 5–6).
Appellant argues that Ishiguro does not teach monitoring a Web client
as claimed (App. Br. 9). Appellant contends that Ishiguro’s host 1 is not a
Web server so clearly a Web client is not monitored. Id. Appellant
contends that Ishiguro’s system is self-contained and thus does not provide a
basis for modifying Drummond where a Web client accesses a remote Web
server (App. Br. 9–10). Appellant argues that Drummond does not discuss
the claimed arrangement where a Web server remote from the terminal
controls a Web client to control a transaction flow of the self-service
terminal (App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that “transaction flow” is defined
in the Specification as “the sequence of screens and the logic that controls
the next screen to be presented based on an event or a selection made by a
customer at the current screen” (Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends that the
transaction flow of the self-service terminal is controlled by a Web client
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

4
which parses commands it receives from a remote Web server. Id.
Appellant argues that Drummond’s device includes steps taken to address
whether communication has been established between a Web server and a
Web client prior to transaction flow (Reply Br. 3). Appellant argues that
Drummond does not detect the failure of communication with the Web
server which includes mid-transaction flow failures as claimed. Id.
Appellant contends that Drummond does not disclose the four actions
recited in claim 1 as occurring in the event of failure of communication. Id.
While Appellant and the Examiner agree that the Ishiguro does not
disclose a Web client-Web server arrangement, Appellant’s arguments fail
to address specifically the Examiner’s finding that combined teachings of
Ishiguro and Drummond would have suggested the subject matter of
claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Ishiguro teaches monitoring
the signals received and processed by the client (i.e., the card processor) in
order to detect communication failures (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that
Ishiguro’s teachings in combination with Drummond’s teaching regarding
Web client and Web server interactions would have suggested monitoring
signals received and processed by a Web client to detect a communication
failure to ensure smooth and error-free automated teller machine (ATM)
transaction processes (Ans. 7). These findings are not specifically contested
by Appellant (Reply Br. generally).
Appellant’s arguments regarding Drummond’s failure to teach the
claimed arrangement where a Web server remote from the terminal controls
a Web client to control a transaction flow of the self-service terminal do not
address or show error in the Examiner’s specific findings that Drummond
teaches the claimed arrangement between Web client and Web server at
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

5
paragraphs [0088], [0089], [0092], and [0093] (Ans. 7–8). Likewise,
Appellant does not address or show error in the Examiner’s specific findings
that Drummond teaches the four required steps of the error recovery agent at
paragraphs [0336] to [0339], [0138], and [0186] to [0188] (Final Off.
Act. 4).
Appellant’s argument that the claim is directed at addressing failures
that may occur mid-transaction is incomplete because it is based on a too-
narrow interpretation of the phrase “any pending transaction” (emphasis
added). We construe the phrase “(iii) to inform the customer about a
resolution of any pending transaction when the failure occurred” as not
limited solely to an error recovery step in during a specific request for, e.g.,
a transfer of funds. Rather, the Specification discloses that when a fault is
detected “pre-deposit” (i.e., before step 226 in Figure 4A) the error recovery
agent implements the “pre-deposit recovery process 300” (Spec. 15:2–3).
The Specification places no restriction on when a failure may occur within
the meaning of the claims. Therefore, we find that failure may occur at any
time including immediately after insertion of the ATM card step 204. The
term “transaction” is not defined by Appellant in the Specification. But the
claim plainly covers “any pending transaction.” Accordingly, it is
reasonable in light of Appellant’s broad disclosure to find that “any pending
transaction” includes a transaction started by insertion of the ATM card into
the machine while waiting for the Web client to determine if the Web server
is “awake” as in Drummond. In our view the claims do not exclude
Drummond’s initial querying of the Web server to see if it is awake and
cancelling the transaction if the sever is not available (i.e., awake)
(Drummond para [0162], [0163]). Put another way, the unavailability of the
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

6
server is, or results in, a “failure of communication” between the local web
client and the remote web server. As the Examiner finds, Drummond at
paragraphs [0095] and [0096] presents a sequence of screens based upon
selections made by the customer based upon the interaction of the Web
client and Web server, which reasonably constitute transaction flow as that
term is defined in the Specification (Final Off. Act. 4). Appellant has not
disputed these findings of the Examiner.

Regarding Rejection (2) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Drummond
alone, Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 6 (App. Br. 10–11).
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 10 merely reference the arguments
made regarding claim 6 without embellishment (App. Br. 11). Accordingly,
we address Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 6 only.
Appellant argues that Drummond fails to teach the combination of
steps of: detecting a failure of communication with the remote Web server,
accessing a local transaction flow, in response to the detected failure, and
returning inserted media to the customer using the local transaction flow
(App. Br. 10–11). Appellant contends that Drummond does not employ
local transaction flow accessed in response to a detected failure and then
returns inserted media to the user (id.). Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s position in the Final Office Action that it is known to return
ATM cards upon terminal failure or a lapse in time period fails to address
the claimed subject matter (App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that a failure in
communication with the remote server is what prompts the accessing of
local transaction flows and return of the media to the user. Id.
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

7
The Examiner construes the step of “accessing a local transaction
flow, in response to [a] detected failure” (emphasis added) as including any
detected failure as the prompt for returning inserted media to the user
(Ans. 9–10). The Examiner finds that “a detected failure” need not be the
same as a failure in communication with the remote server because the claim
language lacks antecedent basis with the failure detected in the “detecting
step.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Drummond discloses local
transaction flows, which the Examiner defines as “a transaction flow that is
at least in part operated within the local computing environment” (Ans. 8).
The Examiner finds that Drummond teaches using local transaction flows
(Ans. 9).
Although Appellant contends that “a detected failure” in the accessing
step of the claim refers to the failure in communication detected in the
detecting step (Reply Br. 3–4), the Examiner’s claim construction is
reasonable in light of the plain language of the claim. The recitation of “a
detected failure” reasonably includes any detected failure and is not limited
solely to the failure detected in the detecting step. Indeed, page 3, lines 3-5
of the Specification describes that “the failure may be due to a
communications problem, information that cannot be rendered by the Web
client, commands that cannot be parsed by the Web client, and the like.” So,
the ʼ056 Specification teaches that detected failures are not limited solely to
communications problems as Appellant contends. If Appellant meant “a
detected failure” to refer to the failure in communication detected by the
detecting step, adequately specific limiting language should have been
included in the claims.
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

8
With this proper claim construction in mind, we find that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 6 over
Drummond. Moreover, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to return inserted media once a failure has
been detected to be an obvious addition to the automated banking machine
of Drummond (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that return of the card due to a
communication failure is matter of “common sense” as the failure to return
the card may strip the customer of a deposit, an identification card, or other
media inserted into a self-service terminal (Ans. 10). Appellant does not
respond to any of these particular findings or conclusions of the Examiner
(Reply Br. generally).
Appellant makes further general arguments that rejections (1) and (2)
are based on hindsight, the prior art teaches away from the combination and
the Examiner failed to address the claimed invention as a whole based (App.
Br. 11–13). However, none of these general arguments are factually tied to
any of the particular findings or conclusion of the Examiner with regard
Drummond or Ishiguro or the the disclosures of Drummond or Ishiguro. In
other words, Appellant’s mere attorney argument in the Appeal Brief does
not take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600,
602 (CCPA 1965).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of
claims 1–14.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal 2013-000056
Application 12/004,359

9
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).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

cdc