Ex Parte Sonnendorfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11815531 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HORST SONNENDORFER
and FRANZ WIETH
____________________

Appeal 2012-008487
Application 11/815,531
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE,
and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 3–8. App. Br. 2. Claims 1 and 2 are cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-008487
Application 11/815,531

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are independent. Claim 3 is reproduced below.
3. A shopping trolley comprising
a token element for holding and releasing a token
and an immobilizer being optionally activated and
deactivated, the immobilizer being deactivated if a
token is located in the token element, the
immobilizer blocking a roller of the trolley or
restricting steering of the trolley, the token element
including a sensor and the token is released only if
the sensor has detected that the shopping trolley
has been pushed into another shopping trolley.

REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett (US 6,746,030 B1; iss. June 8, 2004) and Fuchs
(US 5,328,013; iss. July 12, 1994).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bartlett, Fuchs, and Schweninger (US 6,161,849; iss. Dec. 19, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Bartlett and Fuchs
The Examiner found that Bartlett discloses a shopping trolley with a
token element 22 and roller immobilizer 32 that is activated and deactivated
to block rollers 7, 8 when a token is inserted into token element 22, but lacks
a token element that holds and releases a token or a trolley-to-trolley nesting
sensor. Ans. 6 (citing col. 2, ll. 40–52; Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner found that
Fuchs teaches a shopping trolley with a token element/sensor 20 that holds a
token to deactivate immobilizer 20A and releases a token only when it
detects the trolley has been pushed into another trolley. Id. The Examiner
Appeal 2012-008487
Application 11/815,531

3
determined that it would have been obvious to incorporate the token
element/sensor of Fuchs into the trolley of Bartlett for selectively retaining
the trolley. Id.
Appellants argue that Bartlett discloses a payment system in which a
non-refundable payment (e.g., by coins or a swipe card) is needed to release
the brake of the shopping trolley wheels. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that
it is unreasonable to modify Bartlett to include a token system because the
use of a token that is released at the end of trolley use would result in no
payment being made for use of the trolley. Id. In this regard, Appellants
also argue that Bartlett discloses that correct payment is always required to
release the brake 32, and this payment is not returned because the purpose of
the payment recognition means 20 is to earn money with the shopping
trolley. Id. at 9. Appellants also assert that returning money, as in Fuchs’
token system, would be completely contrary to the explicit purpose of
Bartlett and the features thereof upon which the Examiner relies. Id.
Appellants contend that Fuchs discloses a coin deposit system 20 in which a
key is used to activate a locking device that in turn releases a deposited coin
so that the coin can be removed. Id. at 10–11. Accordingly, Appellants
contend that substituting this system for Bartlett’s payment system, which is
for earning money, would result in Bartlett not earning any money, and this
modification would change Bartlett’s principle of operation. Id. at 11–12.
The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning,
a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled
artisan would have had a reason to incorporate the return token system of
Fuchs for the payment system of Bartlett. The Examiner relies on Bartlett’s
disclosure of a shopping trolley that includes a payment recognition means
Appeal 2012-008487
Application 11/815,531

4
20 that recognizes that correct payment has been inserted or credited before
activating a sound or video means. Bartlett, col. 2, ll. 40–46; Fig. 2. The
Examiner has not explained adequately why a skilled artisan would have
replaced this payment system of Bartlett, which a skilled artisan would
understand as a system designed to earn money by ensuring that correct
payment is made or credited before a person can use the trolley, with a non-
payment system. Id. at col. 2, ll. 46–48. The Examiner’s finding that “it is
conceivable that a coin inserted into the apparatus of Bartlett is refunded to a
customer” is speculative and not supported by preponderance of evidence.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not provided articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 8.
Claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Bartlett, Fuchs, and Schweninger
Appellants argue the Schweninger does not cure the deficiencies of
Bartlett and Fuchs as to claim 3, from which claims 5 and 6 depend. App.
Br. 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 3–8.

REVERSED

hh