Ex Parte Snyder

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2007

10033121 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written 1
for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board. 2
3
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 4
___________ 5
6
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 7
AND INTERFERENCES 8
___________ 9
10
Ex parte ROBERT L. SNYDER 11
___________ 12
13
Appeal 2007-1457 14
Application 10/033,121 15
Technology Center 3600 16
___________ 17
18
Decided: April 27, 2007 19
___________ 20
21
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, STUART S. LEVY, and ANTON W. FETTING, 22
Administrative Patent Judges. 23
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 24
DECISION ON APPEAL 25
26
27
STATEMENT OF CASE 28
This appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21, the only claims 29
pending in this application, arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We have jurisdiction 30
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002). 31
32
We AFFIRM.33
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

2

The Appellant invented a self-service checkout system utilizing a component 1
video monitoring system, including a component video camera to obtain pictures 2
of items for purchase. Particularly, the self-service checkout system utilizes the 3
component video camera to obtain digital pictures of produce being weighed for 4
purchase during the weighing process (Specification 4). An understanding of the 5
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced 6
below. 7
1. A method of operating a self-service checkout terminal comprising 8
the steps of: 9
initiating a checkout transaction at the self-service checkout terminal; 10
obtaining weight of a produce item via a scale of the self-service 11
checkout terminal; and 12
acquiring a digital picture of the produce item via a component video 13
camera of the self-service checkout terminal wherein the step of 14
acquiring a digital picture is triggered by the step of obtaining the 15
weight of the produce item. 16
17
This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed June 2, 2005. 18
The Appellant filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on June 7, 2006, and 19
the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on September 13, 20
2006. A Reply Brief was filed on November 15, 2006. 21
PRIOR ART 22
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the 23
appealed claims are: 24
Nishi US 4,914,746 Apr. 3, 1990 25
Humble US 5,426,282 Jun. 20, 1995 26
Nakamura US 6,278,492 B1 Aug. 21, 2001 27
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

3

REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble 2
and Nishi. 3
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble 4
and Nakamura. 5
The Examiner applied Humble in both rejections to show all of the claim 6
limitations except for the use of a component video device, as contrasted with a 7
generic video device. The Examiner applied Nishi and Nakamura each for their 8
teachings of the advantages of a component video device species of the generic 9
video device of Humble. 10
ISSUES 11
The issues pertinent to this appeal are 12
• Whether the art applied shows or suggests acquiring a digital picture 13
triggered by the step of obtaining the weight of a produce item (All claims; 14
Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 2-4) 15
• Whether the art applied shows or suggests waiting for a stable wait period of 16
the produce item on the weight scale (Claims 7 and 21). 17
In particular, the Appellant contends that the trigger in Humble is a sensor, not 18
a scale, that the Examiner has admitted the scale is not the trigger, and that the 19
Examiner has misconstrued the law of open ended transitions such as “comprising” 20
to read the triggering limitation out of the claim. The Appellant also argues that 21
Humble teaches that the camera may be configured so that it does not require an 22
image of the weight, or even that the weighing be done. 23
24
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

4

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 1
The following Findings of Fact (FF), supported by a preponderance of 2
substantial evidence, are pertinent to the above issues. 3
01. Claim 1 has the limitation that “the step of acquiring a digital picture is 4
triggered by the step of obtaining the weight of the produce item.” 5
02. Humble states that 6
When a product enters the security zone 38, a sensor 42 detects the 7
product and commands the moving conveyor to stop at a point where 8
the product is disposed on a weight scale 44. The weight scale 44 9
includes weighing means for determining a weight of the product to 10
an accuracy which complies with government standards. The weight 11
of the product is sensed and transmitted to a processor 48 for a price 12
calculation as hereinafter described. 13
A camera means such as video camera 52 is disposed for 14
capturing a video image of the product in the security zone 38. The 15
image (as well as the weight) may be recorded when the transport is 16
stopped, or may be recorded "on the fly." The video image is either 17
stored temporarily in a memory 54 or transmitted immediately to a 18
video monitor 58 which is disposed for displaying the video image to 19
one or more store personnel. [Emphasis added.] 20
(Humble, col. 3, l. 60 – col. 4, l. 8). 21
03. The above portion of Humble describes a camera taking a picture of an 22
item and suggests including the weight of the item based on the output of 23
a scale that the item is placed on. 24
04. Thus, the above portion of Humble suggests that, at least in such an 25
embodiment as described and suggested, determining the weight would 26
be a necessary condition to acquiring the image of the item. 27
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

5

05. To trigger is to set off or initiate1. 1
06. One event may initiate another event, which, in turn may initiate another 2
event. In such a case, each of the first and second events may be said to 3
trigger the third event. 4
07. In Humble, a sensor initiates the weighing, which in turn initiates the 5
image capture. 6
08. Thus, Humble suggests acquiring a digital picture triggered by the step of 7
obtaining the weight of a produce item. 8
09. The above portion of Humble also states that the weighing step meets 9
governmental standards. 10
10. Governmental standards of weight require at least a minimum degree of 11
accuracy and precision, which may only be met by waiting for transient 12
movements to cease. 13
11. Thus, Humble describes weighing items and waiting for transient 14
movements to cease. 15
12. A period for transient movements to cease may be characterized as a 16
period for achieving stability. 17
13. Thus, Humble suggests waiting for a stable wait period of the produce 18
item on the weight scale. 19

1 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, 2000.
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

6

ANALYSIS 1
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble and Nishi. 2
Based on the above Findings of Fact, we conclude that 3
• The art applied shows or suggests acquiring a digital picture triggered by the 4
step of obtaining the weight of a produce item (FF 08)(All claims; Br. 9-14; 5
Reply Br. 2-4) 6
• The art applied shows or suggests waiting for a stable wait period of the 7
produce item on the weight scale (FF 13)(Claims 7 and 21). 8
As to the Appellant’s contention that the trigger in Humble is a sensor, not a 9
scale, that the Examiner has admitted the scale is not the trigger, and that the 10
Examiner has misconstrued the law of open ended transitions such as “comprising” 11
to read the triggering limitation out of the claim, we note that the Examiner 12
apparently was simply acknowledging that the scale might be an intermediate 13
trigger and not the initial trigger, but that even an intermediate trigger is still a 14
trigger (FF 06). 15
As to Appellant’s contention that that Humble teaches that the camera may be 16
configured so that it does not require an image of the weight, or even that the 17
weighing be done, we note that these are alternative embodiments, in addition to 18
the embodiment in which the weight is recorded on the image, and therefore do not 19
negate Humble’s teachings of that embodiment. 20
The Appellant has argued the remainder of the claims based on these same 21
issues, and so these claims are treated in a similar manner. The Appellant has not 22
shown reversible error on the part of the Examiner. Accordingly we sustain the 23
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

7

Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over 1
Humble and Nishi. 2
3
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Humble and 4
Nakamura. 5
The Appellant has argued the claims in this rejection based on these same 6
issues as to the teachings of Humble, and so these claims are treated in a similar 7
manner. The Appellant has not shown reversible error on the part of the Examiner. 8
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 9
103(a) as obvious over Humble and Nakamura. 10
11
DECISION 12
To summarize, our decision is as follows: 13
• The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over 14
Humble and Nishi is sustained. 15
• The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over 16
Humble and Nakamura is sustained. 17
Appeal 2007-1457
Application 10/033,121

8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal 1
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2006). 2
AFFIRMED 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
hh 13
14
PAUL W. MARTIN 15
NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. 16
1700 S. PATTERSON BLVD. 17
DAYTON, OH 45479-0001 18
19