Ex parte UCHIYAMA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 1998

07617740 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 1998)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte KATSUHIKO UCHIYAMA
_______________
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application 07/617,7401
_______________
HEARD: Feb. 2, 1998
_______________
Before KRASS, LEE, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 6, all the claims pending in the application.
The invention is directed to a business transaction data
accumulation system wherein business transaction data is
accumulated even if a disconnection develops on a
communication line connecting the accumulating device to a
point-of-sale (POS) terminal. More specifically, each POS
terminal has therein a failure detecting means for detecting when

1 Application for patent filed November 26, 1990.
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
2
there is a failure on the communication line between the POS
terminal and the accumulating device. When such a failure is
detected, the business transaction data from that POS terminal is
recorded at the POS terminal and, at the end of the day, the
medium upon which the business transaction data was recorded is
brought into the accumulating device where the data is read,
accumulated and placed into a storage device.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A business transaction data accumulating system
comprising:
a plurality of business transaction data entry means for
entering of data about business transactions, and for outputting
said entered data;
a business transaction data accumulating means for
accumulating the business transaction data entered through any of
said business transaction data entry means; and
a communication line for connecting said plurality of
business transaction data entry means to said business
transaction data accumulating means and for transmitting said
entered data to said business transaction data accumulating
means, wherein
each of said business transaction data entry means includes
a failure detecting means for detecting any failure that
occurs at least on said communication line prior to said business
transaction data entry means outputting said data, and
a recording means for recording, on a recording medium, the
business transaction data entered through said business
transaction data entry means upon detection of any failure by
said failure detecting means.
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
3
The examiner relies on the following references:
Takahashi 4,750,120 Jun. 7, 1988
Kubota 5,056,090 Oct. 8, 1991
(filed May 9, 1989)
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Kubota. In a new ground
of rejection entered in the principal answer, the examiner also
rejects claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Takahashi,
alone.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the evidence before us,
including the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejections and appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse.
The examiner points out that Takahashi discloses a plurality
of business transaction data entry systems, data accumulation
means and a communication line for connecting the business
transaction data entry systems to the accumulating means but
admits that Takahashi lacks a teaching of a failure detecting
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
4
means and a recording means in the business transaction data
entry systems. Thus, the examiner turns to Kubota in one
rejection for the disclosure of data check circuits for detecting
errors in transmitted data. The examiner then concludes,
erroneously, in our view, that “checking errors on data
inherently involves the checking of a communication line over
which the data is being transmitted” [page 4-principal answer].
In the new ground of rejection, relying on Takahashi, alone,
the examiner reasons that because failure detecting means are
well known, it would have been obvious to “incorporate a failure
detecting means to check the communication line since the
communication line is the essential link in transmitting and
receiving data” [page 6-principal answer] and because recording
means are well known, it would have been obvious “to record or
store business transaction data upon detecting failure in a
communication to have a continuous record of all the data for
future utilization” [page 6-principal answer].
The problem with the examiner’s rationale with regard to the
rejection of claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 in view of
Takahashi and Kubota is that checking errors on data is not,
inherently, a check on the failure of a communication line. It
is, of course, possible that a data error might be the result of
a failed communication line. But a data error may also be the
result of noise, parity error, alignment error, etc. Inherency
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
5
may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.
Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA
1939).
Moreover, independent claim 1 requires not only detecting
any failure on the communication line, but also that detection
takes place “prior to” the data entry means transmitting its
data. Further, in response to an error detection prior to
transmission, recording means within the data entry terminals
record the data. There is no suggestion of the claimed failure
detecting means or the claimed recording means or of the claimed
interaction of these elements in either Takahashi or Kubota or in
the combination thereof. As claimed, it is clear that the
instant invention is interested in detecting failure of the
communication line at the POS terminals and of recording data at
those terminals if there is a detected error in the communication
line. If, somehow, Takahashi was combined with Kubota, it would
appear to us that, if anything, there may be a data check
performed at the data collection system C of Takahashi but there
would have been no reason to check for failures in the
communication line at the electronic cash registers of Takahashi
and then, upon such failure detection, to store business
transaction data at the cash register terminals.
Turning to the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
' 103, relying on Takahashi, alone, the deficiencies of Takahashi
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
6
are explained supra. However, the examiner takes the position
here that because the failure detecting means and recording means
are “well known in the art” [page 6-principal answer], it would
have been obvious to “incorporate a failure detecting means to
check the communication line since the communication line is the
essential link in transmitting and receiving data” and to
“record…upon detecting failure in a communication to have a
continuous record of all the data for future utilization” [page
6-principal answer].
While the examiner’s rationale has a certain appeal of
simplicity to it, justifying such rationale by contending that
one would, of course, wish to detect whether a communication line
had failed and, upon such failure detection, would clearly not
want to send data over a faulty line so such data should be
stored for future use or transmission, the trouble with the
rationale is that it is one of impermissible hindsight. Only
appellant’s own disclosure, and not the applied reference, taught
what the examiner contends to have been obvious. This is clearly
an improper basis for a finding of obviousness.
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
7
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 6 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jameson Lee ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Richard Torczon )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
8
Nikaido, Marmelstein, Murray & Oram
Metropolitan Square
655 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 330-G Street Lobby
Washington, DC 20005-5701
Appeal No. 96-0241
Application No. 07/617,740
9