Ex Parte Mungo

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 2017

13310353 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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. 13/310,353 12/02/2011 Joseph C. Mungo 2011P18143US01 2559 28524 7590 03/23/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER OSIFADE, IDOWU O Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2017 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH C. MUNGO Appeal 2014-009968 Application 13/310,353 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-009968 Application 13/310,353 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed invention pertains to a methods for mail processing. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for processing mail, performed by a mail processing system, comprising: receiving a plurality of mailpieces in the mail processing system; associating a unique identifier with each of the plurality of mailpieces; obtaining destination address information for each of the plurality of mailpieces; comparing the destination address information with a potential move table to determine destination addresses for which there is a potential change of address; sending the destination address information including a recipient name to a change of address (COA) server; receiving COA results from the COA server; and printing destination information on each mailpiece according to the COA results, including correlating the COA results to the unique identifiers. THE REJECTION The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 9 through 14, and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause (US 2010/0281529 Al) and of Rathbun (US 2009/0157470 Al); The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause, Rathbun and Kiani (US 2008/0269946 Al). 2 Appeal 2014-009968 Application 13/310,353 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “receiving a plurality of mailpieces . . . associating a unique identifier with each of the plurality of mailpieces.” Independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s citation of Krause fails to teach associating a unique identifier with each of the plurality of mail pieces. App. Br. 17—18. Appellant argues the Examiner’s citation of Krause fails to teach associating a unique identifier with each of the plurality of mailpieces, wherein the mailpieces are received mailpieces. App. Br. 18—22. The Examiner cites paragraph [67] and Fig. 17, element 1704 in particular, of Krause as teaching the limitation of “associating] a unique identifier with each of the plurality of mail pieces.” Fin. Act. 4. The Examiner states, “Note that element number 1704 (FIG. 17) embodies a unique identifier for each company; further, in Stage 3 (FIG. 17) of Krause, the COA server is taught to send a physical mail piece notifications [sic] to the physical address of the recipient (stage 3) as disclosed in e.g., [0065]; thus, associating a unique identifier (belonging to each company) with each of the mail pieces received” [emphasis added and removed]. Ans. 9. Despite the Examiner’s conclusion that the preceding explanation of the citation demonstrates the step of “associating a unique identifier (belonging to each company) with each of the mail pieces received,” we do not see sufficient evidence or an adequate explanation to support the Examiner’s finding. The cited portion of Krause teaches associating unique identifiers with received mailpieces. The Examiner’s own explanation describes that “the 3 Appeal 2014-009968 Application 13/310,353 COA server is taught to send a physical mail piece notifications [sic] to the physical address of the recipient.” Ans. 9. Neither the cited portions of the reference, nor the Examiner’s explanation, refer to received mailpieces or explain how received mailpieces are associated with unique identifiers. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not adequately explained how sending a physical mail piece notification equates to associating a unique identifier with a received mail piece. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and the rejections of their dependent claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is reversed. REVERSED 4