11398307 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 2010)

Ex Parte Weitzel

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 14, 2010

11398307 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/398,307 04/04/2006 Scott Allen Weitzel 06-002 6458 65341 7590 12/14/2010 SCOTT WEITZEL 5118 Hogan Court Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2010 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte SCOTT ALLEN WEITZEL ____________________ Appeal 2009-008633 Application 11/398,307 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D. A. MCCARTHY, and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-008633 Application 11/398,307 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Scott Allen Weitzel (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cole (US 6,200,213 B1, iss. Mar. 13, 2001); and rejecting claims 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cole and Ohshita (US 6,397,565 B2, iss. Jun. 4, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a system, method, and apparatus for packaging coins to be returned to the customer of a point-of-sale (POS) transaction as change. Spec., paras. 1, 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising an interface to receive a signal associated with a point-of- sale transaction, the signal further indicating coins to be given to a customer in accord with the point-of-sale transaction; a first dispenser to access a number of coins in accord with the signal; and a packager to package the accessed coins. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether Cole’s apparatus accesses coins for packaging in bags 39 in accord with a signal indicating coins to be given to a customer (claims 1 and 8) or to be packaged (claim 15) in response to, or in accord with, a POS transaction. Appeal 2009-008633 Application 11/398,307 3 DISCUSSION In reading the claims on Cole, the Examiner read the “signal associated with a point-of-sale transaction” on “the signal indicating a win by the customer.” Ans. 3. The Examiner found that the carousel 40 packages the coins in packages (coin bags 39) so as to satisfy the “packager” or “packaging” limitation of the claims. Id. As pointed out by Appellant (App. Br. 6-7), after being inserted into the gaming machine coin slot, Cole’s coins are routed to chute 24 and bagged in response to an indication that hoppers 21 and 23/23A are filled to capacity (Cole, col. 8, l. 32 to col. 9, l. 35). They are not accessed for packaging in bags 39 in response to, or in accord with, the signal indicating a win by the customer. For the above reasons, the Examiner erred in finding that Cole’s apparatus accesses coins for packaging in bags 39 in accord with a signal indicating coins to be given to a customer or to be packaged in response to, or in accord with, a POS transaction. Thus, the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case that Cole anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent claims. In rejecting claims 7, 13, and 20 as unpatentable over Cole and Ohshita, the Examiner did not rely on Ohshita2, or propose any modification 2 The Examiner found that Ohshita “discloses an apparatus for dispensing change, including rolls of coins in wrappers,” and relied specifically on Ohshita’s teaching to print a label and label the wrappers with the amount and type of coins, in concluding it would have been obvious to add to Cole a printer to print data about the coin containers. Ans. 4. The Examiner made no findings directed to whether Ohshita teaches dispensing and packaging the coins in accord with a signal indicating coins to be given to a customer or to be packaged in response to, or in accord with, a POS transaction. We Appeal 2009-008633 Application 11/398,307 4 of Cole, to make up for the deficiency noted above in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 as anticipated by Cole. Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of claims 7, 13, and 20, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED hh SCOTT WEITZEL 5118 Hogan Court Fort Collins, CO 80528 have not reviewed Ohshita in its entirety to determine whether Ohshita teaches this.