Ex Parte Fowler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2017

14219416 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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. 14/219,416 03/19/2014 Paul Michael Fowler 113963-0149 2609 143550 7590 08/25/2017 FOT FY Rr T ARDNFR T T P EXAMINER 3000 K STREET N.W. REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3788 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocketing @ foley. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL MICHAEL FOWLER, MATTHEW ERIC BLUE, and RONALD T. KLEIN Appeal 2015-008041 Application 14/219,416 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 16—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A related appeal, 2014- 008038, was taken in application 13/043,584, now U.S. patent 9,650,173. We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2015-008041 Application 14/219,416 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a product dispensing system. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A product dispensing system, comprising; a. a plurality of layers of products, each layer having multiple items in separate packages, the separate packages comprising first, second, and third separate packages, b. a carrier for each layer, said first, second, and third separate packages of each layer being secured to and respectively extending in series from the carrier for each layer, with the first package being secured to the carrier for the layer, the second package secured to and extending from the first package, and the third package secured to an extending from the second package, and c. the carrier and first package secured to one another with a first connection with a first strength, the first package and second package secured to one another with a second connection with a strength smaller than the first connection, and the second package and third package secured to one another with a third connection with a strength smaller than the second connection. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Braverman US 3,780,856 Dec. 25, 1973 Dossett US 6,401,304 B1 June 11,2002 Kumakura US 6,439,390 B1 Aug. 27,2002 REJECTIONS1 Claims 16—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumakura, Dossett, and Braverman. Claims 24—29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumakura and Braverman. 1 The Examiner withdrew the double-patenting rejection. Adv. Act. 2. 2 Appeal 2015-008041 Application 14/219,416 OPINION The only distinction between this case and appeal 2014-008038 is that the limitation in question in the independent claims involved in the present appeal specifically enumerates “first,” “second,” and “third” packages whereas the term “successive” was used in the claims involved in the prior appeal. This distinction does not impact the arguments or our analysis of the issues presented for review. Accordingly, we adopt our analysis from appeal 2014-008038 for the corresponding claims2 involved in this appeal. DECISION The rejection of claims 16—19 and 21—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumakura, Dossett, and Braverman is affirmed. The rejection of claims 24, 25 and 27—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumakura and Braverman is affirmed. The respective rejections of claims 20 and 26 are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 2 The issues presented regarding claims 16 and 24 in the present appeal are the same as those presented regarding claims 1 and 10 in the ’8038 appeal. The issues presented regarding claims 23 and 29 of the present appeal are the same as those presented regarding claim 9 in the ’8038 appeal. The issues presented regarding claims 20 and 26 in the present appeal are the same as those presented regarding claims 6 and 12 of the ’8038 appeal. 3