Ex Parte Frankenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

12514015 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/514,015 0510712009 Steffen Frankenberg 69590 7590 04/27/2016 International IP Law Group P.O. BOX 691927 HOUSTON, TX 77269-1927 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10681-PT-WO-US 7176 EXAMINER FLYNN, KEVIN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2016 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): docketing@iiplg.com barry.blount@iiplg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEFFEN FRANKENBERG, FLA VIO ALARIO, and REBEKKA ALARIO Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 9-17 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to the management of electronic parcel compartments in a parcel facility (Spec. i-f 11 ). Claim 1 7, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 17. An electronic parcel compartment facility comprising several compartments in a number amounting to F, with which mailpieces of at least two user groups A and B having different access rights can be deposited into the compartments of the parcel compartment facility, whereby the electronic parcel compartment facility is in communication with a central data processing unit, and the occupation status of the compartments of the electronic parcel compartment facility is transmitted to the data processing unit so that the number Y of different sizes of free compartments of the electronic parcel compartment facility is stored in a memory of the data processing unit, and the central data processing unit is also in communication with at least one mail distribution center where destination information about the mailpieces and an accordant deposited re- routing instruction, if applicable, is acquired, whereby the destination information is associated with the electronic parcel compartment facility, and the central data processing unit is also in communication with a handheld device in possession of a deliverer, the electronic parcel compartment facility compnsmg: a plurality of sequenced means, wherein an associated plurality of functions are performed in a sequence, comprising: means for specifying a period of time Z between a starting point in time and an ending point in time, then; means for storing the period of time Z in a data processing unit of the mail distribution center, then; means for acquiring destination information and sizes of the mailpieces in the mail distribution center using a data acquisition device, then; means for determining the X number of mailpieces whose destination information acquired during the period of time Z matches the destination information of the parcel 2 Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 compartment facility by the data processing unit of the mail distribution center, then; means for transmitting the number X by the data processing unit of the mail distribution center to the central data processing unit, then; means for comparing the number X to the number Y of free compartments, then; means for assigning X free compartments of the parcel compartment facility to a first user group A by the central data processing unit if Y = X, then; means for selecting an alternative parcel compartment facility that has available compartments if a customer has selected a parcel compartment facility, but a system knows that no free compartments are available in the parcel compartment facility, then; means for transmitting a control command for the reservation of the X free compartments of the parcel compartment facility assigned to the first user group A by the data processing unit to a control unit of the parcel compartment facility, then; means for subtracting the number X of reserved compartments from the number Y of free compartments for purposes of determining the number V of available compartments remaining in the parcel compartment facility, then; means for assigning at least some of the remaining available compartments V to a second user group B, if V > 1, then; means for transmitting a control command for a reservation of the compartments assigned to the second user group B from the data processing unit to the control unit of the parcel compartment facility, if V > 1, then; means for acquiring user identifications and/or mailing information through a user interface at the parcel compartment facility, then; means for associating a user and/ or a mail piece with the user groups A or B on the basis of the acquired user information and/or mailing information, then; 3 Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 means for controlling access to free compartments of the parcel compartment facility on the basis of the reservations made for the two user groups A and B, then; means for determining a point in time P by the control unit of the parcel compartment facility, then; means for canceling the reservations of compartments for the user groups A and B after the point in time P, then; means for releasing access to free compartments of the parcel compartment facility to all user groups; and, at last, means for transmitting information of the reservation to a handheld device of a deliverer. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 9--15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement for failure to show possession of the invention. Claims 9--15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 9--15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2002/0178074 Al, pub. Nov. 28, 2002), Deans (US 2003/0208364 Al, pub. Nov. 6, 2003), Moreno (US 2002/0035515 Al, pub. Mar. 21, 2002), Kadaba (US 2005/0119786 Al, pub. June 2, 2005), and Kinory (US 2001/0034665 Al, pub. Oct. 25, 2001). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bloom, Deans, Moreno, and Kadaba. 4 Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 FINDfNGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 112,first paragraph The Examiner has determined that the rejection of claims 9--15 is proper because the limitation "and transmitting information of the reservation to a handheld" in claim 9 is not supported because "the specification, in i-f 004 7 only provides support for transmitting reservation information regarding user group B, not user group A" (Final Act. 3; Ans. 4). The Examiner has also rejected claim 9 for requiring a particular sequence of steps that is not supported by the Specification. Specifically, the Examiner has rejected claim 9 for the phrase "making a reservation of a compartment for a deliverer by means of the handheld device ... and the recipient is not home; then" because the Specification "does not provide support for this step being at the particular moment following the specifying a time period step and before the querying a database step" (id.). The Examiner has also rejected claim 17 for the phrase "and, at last, means for transmitting the information of the reservation to a handheld device of a deliverer" because "there is no support for that particular step being placed after the 'means for cancelling ... ' and 'means for releasing access ... ' limitations" (Final Act. 3; Ans. 5). 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 5 Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 In contrast, the Appellants have argued that support for the cited claim limitations is found at page 15, line 28 through page 16, line 5, on page 26, lines 27-29, on page 3, lines 19-27, on page 16, line 18 through page 17, line 22, on page 26, lines 4--9, on page 12, lines 14--16, on page 11, line 26, on page 19, line 12, on page 20, line 30, on page 21, line 22, and on page 14, lines 29-30 of the Specification (Appeal Br. 12-13, Reply Br. 2). We agree with the Examiner. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the Specification at the portions cited above by the Appellants simply do not provide any support for the claim limitations at issue that is relevant to the rejection. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 9-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, is sustained. Rejection under 35 US.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph The Examiner has determined that claims 9-15 and 1 7 are indefinite because "there may be a situation where Y is less than X, in which case user group A could not reserve the full number of X free compartments" thus rendering indefinite the limitation "transmitting a control command for the reservation of the X free compartments" in claims 9 and 1 7, and "transmitting a control command for a reservation of the compartments assigned to the second user group B" in claim 17 (Final Act. 4). The Examiner has also determined that "the remaining available compartments 6 Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 V" in claims 10-12 is indefinite "because V may be zero, and therefore there may be no 'the remaining available compartments V"' (id.). In contrast, the Appellants contend that the rejection is improper (Appeal Br. 12-13). The Appellants assert that the claims are "not insolubly ambiguous" (id.) but have not provided any argument that addresses the Examiner's specific rejection regarding the numerical values of the variables X, Y, and V. We have reviewed the rejection and deem it proper. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Therefore, the Appellants arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 9-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, is sustained. Rejections under 35 USCÂ§ 103(a) The Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 9-15 and 17 is improper because "Bloom fails to disclose a different priority between multiple shippers" (Appeal Br. 15). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper (Final Act. 5-12, Ans. 6-10). We agree with the Examiner. Here, the claims require allocation of compartments to "at least two user groups A and B having different access rights," but do not require the specific prioritization aspects argued by the 7 Appeal2013-008239 Application 12/514,015 Appellants. As such, the Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 17. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for independent claim 16 and dependent claims 10-15 as for claims 9 and 17 (Appeal Br. 16), and thus, we sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 9--17 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2015). AFFIRMED 8