Ex Parte Tuttle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2009

10665124 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. TUTTLE and WILLIAM J. SOUZA
____________

Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 14, 2009
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of pending claims 1-36. (Reply Brief filed May 20, 2008,
hereinafter “Rep.Br.,” 2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants describe a system for controlling the operation of a pay-as-
you-go laundry facility and a method for dispensing working fluid.
Claims 1 and 23, reproduced from the Claim Appendix to the Reply
Brief, are illustrative and recite:
1. A system for controlling the operation of a pay-as-you-go
laundry facility that includes multiple washing machines using
at least one working fluid, comprising:

a centralized fluid distribution system for dispensing a
metered amount of working fluid to each of said multiple
washing machines;

a dispensing controller for controlling said centralized
fluid distribution system according to a predetermined
dispensing sequence;

a washing sequence controller at each of said washing
machines, connected to independently operate a washing
machine according to a selected washing sequence;

a payment processor constructed to receive and approve a
payment medium presented by the user according to a
predetermined payment sequence;

a system controller connected to said payment processor,
said washing sequence controller, and said dispensing
controller to receive inputs therefrom and to generate and send
2
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

control signals thereto according to a predetermined control
sequence.

23. In a system for controlling the operation of a pay-as-you-go
laundry facility that includes multiple washing machines using
at least one working fluid, a method for dispensing working
fluid comprising the steps of:

prompting the user to present a payment medium:

prompting the user to select a washing machine and
verifying the available status thereof;

activating the selected washing machine;

sensing the availability of working fluid for dispensing in
a reservoir for said working fluid;

prompting the user to select a working fluid;

processing a transaction according to the selections made
by the user to verify authenticity of the payment medium and
authorize payment; and

in response to payment, dispensing a metered dosage of
the selected working fluid to the selected washing machine;
and1

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pittendreigh US 3,192,744 Jul. 6, 1965
Yamamoto US 3,362,515 Jan. 9, 1968
Hiortdahl US 3,864,616 Feb. 4, 1975

1 For the purposes of this decision, we will treat claim 23 as a complete
claim, ending in a period after “machine.”
3
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

Blackburn US 3,891,123 Jun. 24, 1975
Bruntz US 5,978,995 Nov. 9, 1999

In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner set forth five new grounds of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7,
10, 11, 14, 15, and 18-22 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of
Hiortdahl; (2) the Examiner rejected claims 2, 16 ,17, 23-27, 29-31, and 34-
36 as being unpatentable over Blackburn and Hiortdahl, and further in view
of Pittendreigh; (3) the Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over Blackburn and Hiortdahl, and further in view of Bruntz;
(4) the Examiner rejected claims 28, 32, and 33 as being unpatentable over
Blackburn in view of Hiortdahl, Pittendreigh and Bruntz; and (5) the
Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Blackburn
and Hiortdahl, and further in view of Yamamoto.

ISSUES
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the recited system would have been obvious over
Blackburn in view of Hiortdahl?
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the recited method for dispensing working fluid would
have been obvious over Blackburn in view of Hiortdahl and Pittendreigh?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

4
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

1. The Examiner found that Blackburn discloses a single programmer
60 which connects a multiplicity of washing machines 27.
(Examiner’s Answer entered March 21, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,”
5).
2. Blackburn states “[t]he prsent [sic] invention provides a system for
dispensing desired fluid supplies in individually segregated circuits
wherein each machine unit is provided with a dispensing tank for
each variety of supply.” (Col. 1, ll. 23-26).
3. Blackburn discloses “[a] programmer 40 for each washing machine
serves to control a plurality of supplies such as ‘supply 1,’ ‘supply
2,’ etc.” (Col. 2, ll. 54-57; Fig. 2).
4. Blackburn discloses a programmer 60 having plural outputs that
are connected to supply solenoids to provide “release of supply to
the related machine.” (Col. 3, ll. 17-27; Fig. 3).
5. The Examiner found that Hiortdahl discloses a coin-operated
circuit as a central control means for a plurality of machines. (Ans.
5).
6. Hiortdahl discloses “a central control console for operating a
plurality of machines, said console including a coin slot, a coin
metering device, a coin-operated switch, a coin receptacle, a power
supply, and selector switch means for selectively coupling said
power supply to the starting coil of a selected one of said plurality
of machines.” (Col. 2, ll. 4-9).
7. The Examiner found that Pittendreigh discloses a coin-operated
washing machine with an indicator panel which includes control
switches and indicator lights. (Ans. 7). The Examiner found that
5
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

the indicator panel reads on a user interface that prompts users to
operate the machine. (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner stated “[i]t is at
once envisaged that indicator lights may flash or another
equivalent type of indication such as an open coin slot or message
on the indicator panel prompts the user to operate the machine
correctly.” (Ans. 8).
8. Pittendreigh discloses an indicator panel for a washing machine
including a series of lamps to indicate the operation cycle of the
washing machine. (Col. 3, ll. 32-34).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Initially, we agree with Appellants that Blackburn’s programmer 60
(i.e., the recited dispensing controller) is located at each individual washing
machine and provides control over multiple supplies to one machine. (Rep.
Br. 8-9 and 11-12). Blackburn specifically states that each programmer is
located at an individual washing machine and that each machine is provided
with a dispensing tank for each variety of supply. (FF 2-4). Therefore, the
Examiner erred in finding that Blackburn discloses the use of multiple
machines with a single programmer.
6
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

In addition, we agree with Appellants that Blackburn in view of
Hiortdahl fails to disclose the “system controller” recited in the present
claims. (Rep. Br. 7, 9-10, and 12). Specifically, the Examiner failed to
provide sufficient articulated reasoning that Blackburn in view of Hiortdahl
discloses a “system controller” connected to a payment processor, a washing
sequence controller, and a dispensing controller. The Examiner found that
Hiortdahl discloses a “payment processor” that works together with a
“central control console.” (Ans. 11). However, the Examiner has not
provided a sufficient rationale as to why or how one of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified Hiortdahl’s “central control console” to connect it
with Blackburn’s controlled fluid supplies in the manner recited in the
claims.
Regarding the recited method of dispensing working fluid, in light of
our comments above, we agree with Appellants that Blackburn, Hiortdahl,
and Pittendreigh fail to relate processing a transaction for payment to
dispensing a metered dose of selected working fluid. (Rep. Br. 17). The
Examiner’s general comments with respect to Pittendreigh’s indicator panel
(Ans. 7-8) fail to sufficiently address the method of dispensing working fluid
recited in the claims. Moreover, the Examiner has provided no sufficient
additional rationale to support that such modifications would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, because the
Examiner relies on the above discussed combination of references as a basis
for all of the grounds of rejection on appeal, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.

7
Appeal 2009-002867
Application 10/665,124

CONCLUSION
Appellants have demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the recited system would have been obvious over
Blackburn in view of Hiortdahl.
Appellants have demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the recited method for dispensing working fluid would
have been obvious over Blackburn in view of Hiortdahl and Pittendreigh.

ORDER
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a).
REVERSED

tc

MAC-GRAY CORPORATION
404 WYMAN STREET
WALTHAM, MA 02451
8