Ex Parte Simmons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2015

12491727 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/491,727 0612512009
107681 7590 12/09/2015
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Gregg Simmons
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.
14857.00 5942
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TIEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2015 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):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID GREGG SIMMONS
Appeal2013---004110
Application 12/491,727
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
David Gregg Simmons (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of a final rejection of claims 1-5, the only claims pending in the application
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.,"
filed September 12, 2012) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
November 2, 2012), and Final Rejection ("Final Rej.," mailed December 23,
2011).
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
The Appellant invented a way of balancing out-of-proof deposit
transactions at a keying and balancing workstation of an image-based check
processing system. Specification 1 :6-9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A computer-implemented method
of operating a keying and balancing workstation of an
image-based check processing system,
the computer-implemented method comprising:
[ 1] electronically by a processor
obtaining a free check item from a list of free check
items;
[2] electronically by a processor
extracting payee information from the free check item;
[3] electronically by a processor
establishing a payee name from the extracted payee
information;
[ 4] electronically by a processor
obtaining an account number from a deposit slip;
[5] electronically by a processor
obtaining a list of depositor names based upon the
account number obtained from the deposit slip;
[ 6] electronically by a processor
comparmg
the payee name
with
depositor names contained in the list of depositor
names
2
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
to determine if the payee name matches a depositor
name;
and
[7] electronically by a processor
associating
the free check item
with
the depositor slip
when the payee name matches a depositor name from the
list of depositor names.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Lyke us 5,040,227
Kelland US 2003/0021460 Al
Meidell US 2008/0061126 Al
Aug. 13, 1991
Jan.30,2003
Mar. 13, 2008
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kelland, Lyke, and Meidell.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the references
describe capturing and reconciling check and deposit data as recited in the
claims.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
Facts Related to Appellants' Disclosure
01. From time to time, a check item is identified as not belonging to
the deposit transaction currently being processed. These check
items are known as "free items", and eventually need to be
associated with the correct deposit transaction. When an item is
identified as being a free item, the item is moved to a free item
list. Spec. 2:9--12.
02. A free check item is obtained from the free item list. Spec.
7:10.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Kelland
03. Kelland is directed to processing items in a check processing
system. Kelland para. 1.
04. Kelland describes (a) capturing an image of the non-check item,
(b) extracting text data from the captured image of step (a),
recognizing a name from the extracted text data of step (b ), and
( d) storing the recognized name of step ( c) in memory to provide a
lexicon against which extracted text data from a check item can be
compared. The non-check item may comprise a deposit slip item.
The text data extracted from the captured image of the non-check
item may comprise account owner data, and the name recognized
from the account owner data may comprise an account owner
name. The method may further comprise the steps of ( e)
generating a number of equivalent account owner names based
upon the extracted account owner data of step (b ), and (f) storing
4
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
the equivalent account owner names of step ( e) in memory to
provide other lexicons against which extracted text data from a
check item can be compared. Kelland para. 5.
05. Kelland describes scanning a check image and producing a
check image. Kelland para. 24--25.
06. Kelland describes scanning a check image and producing a
check image. Kelland para. 24--25.
07. A check includes a number of fields including a courtesy
amount field, a legal amount field, a payor field, a payee field, a
date field, and a signature field. The check may be of the personal
type or of the business type. The check is moved past the scanner
to obtain a digitized image of the check. Kelland para. 38.
08. After the payee data is located and extracted, the extracted
payee data is subjected to a character recognition engine to
establish the name of the payee. The recognition results are then
compared against name( s) contained in the name lexicon memory
portion to determine if there is a match. Kelland para. 40.
Lyke
09. Lyke is directed to computerized balancing process which is
useful in proofing of customer deposits in a banking environment.
Lyke 1:5-8.
10. Lyke describes scanning the front and back of each document
and capturing an image of each side of the document. Lyke 5:20-
5
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
23. These documents include both checks and deposit slips. Lyke
6:15-19.
11. Lyke describes a free item file used by the system as a suspense
file for storing data regarding extra or misplaced documents.
Lyke 12:13-15.
12. Lyke describes an example of a relatively large commercial
deposit in which the summary document includes both a deposit
slip with a handwritten total and an accompanying adding
machine tape containing a listing of each item and a machine total.
In this instance, the deposit is out of balance by $20.00, as shown
in the difference field. As a result of the preliminary auto balance
procedure, the system has located a $20.00 item listed on the
adding machine tape for which there is no corresponding check.
The preliminary auto balance function has highlighted this to the
Examiner by the legend "~vfISSING" indicating that there is a
missing item. When the operator clicks on this item, the system
searches the free item file to locate any misplaced checks. Upon
finding a match, the image of the matching check is displayed on
the screen to the operator in a window. The operator can then
inspect the check to determine whether it belongs with the deposit.
The name of the depositor is displayed for the convenience of the
operator, and the operator can compare the name of the payee to
that of the depositor. The operator sees that the check was
endorsed by the depositor Cynthia E. Bemerth, and thus belongs
with this deposit. By clicking on the option "Ok", this check will
be added to the deposit. Lyke 18:41-19:3.
6
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
A1eidell
13. Meidell is directed to check depositing transactions, and is
particularly directed to a method of processing a check depositing
transaction between a bank customer and a bank teller. Meidell
para. 1.
14. When Meidell's bank teller receives two checks from a bank
customer, the bank teller scans each check to capture a grayscale
image of each check. The bank teller also scans the deposit slip to
capture a grayscale image of the deposit slip. The captured item
images are transmitted to a back office facility of the bank for
further processing. Meidell para. 14.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Lyke describes a free item list that coincides
with the free item list disclosed in the Specification. A free check is a check
item in such a free item list. The Examiner also found that Kelland
describes scanning and recognizing data on checks and deposit slips and
storing the deposit slip names in a name lexicon that names extracted from
checks are compared to. The Examiner also found that Meidell shows it was
known to perform this on plural checks. Thus, the limitations of claim 1 are
met.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that Kelland
describes an image capture workstation while the claim recites a keying and
balancing workstation of an image-based check processing system (Br. 4)
and that Lyke' s image balancing workstation would not be combined with
7
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
Kelland's image capture workstation (Br. 5). As the Examiner found, the
only recitation in the claim of a balancing workstation is in the preamble
where the recitation is that of a field of use. Ans. 12. More to the point,
Lyke does describe a balancing work station. The Examiner also found that
it was predictable to update a data capture workstation as in Kelland with
balancing capacity as in Lyke where the nature of check processing requires
both image capture and data balancing. Ans. 14--15.
See Leapfrog Ent., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (concluding that a toy updated with modem electronics was
obvious because "[a ]pp lying modem electronics to older mechanical devices
has been commonplace in recent years," and Leapfrog did not present
evidence that the modifications were uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art or that inclusion represented an unobvious
step over the prior art).
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that Kelland's check
is a physical check and so not a free check. Br. 4--5. As the Examiner
found, Lyke explicitly describes reconciling a free check. Ans. 13-14.
Lyke's image of a check is just that after having been captured by Kelland's
device. Also, nothing in the Specification precludes a free check from being
a check having both a physical and digital form.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that Meidell does not
cure the deficiencies of the other references. Br. 5. As we found supra, the
other references do not have the argued deficiencies.
As to the Examiner's objection, this matter relates to a petitionable
matter and not to an appealable matter. See In re Schneider, 481F.2d1350,
8
Appeal 2013-004110
Application 12/491,727
1356-57 (CCPA 1973) and Jn re A1indick, 371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967).
See also the MPEP § 1002.02(c), item 3(a) and§ 1201. Thus, the relief
sought by the Appellant would have been properly presented by a petition to
the Commissioner under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181 instead of by appeal to this
Board.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kelland, Lyke, and Meidell is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
9