Ex Parte Boden

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2010

10768195 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte KEITH MCMURRAY BODEN 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-010479 11
Application 10/768,195 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
Decided: June 15, 2010 16
___________ 17
18
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. 19
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 21
DECISION ON APPEAL 22
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Keith Mcmurray Boden (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 2
(2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-31, the only claims 3
pending in the application on appeal. 4
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 5
(2002). 6
SUMMARY OF DECISION1 7
We AFFIRM. 8
THE INVENTION 9
The Appellant invented an item handling system and method handling 10
items, typically mail items, to be delivered to destination addresses 11
(Specification 1). 12
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 13
exemplary claims 1 and 30, which are reproduced below [bracketed matter 14
and some paragraphing added]. 15
1. An item handling system, comprising: 16
at least one item printing unit for printing destination address 17
codes on items, each destination address code corresponding to 18
a destination address to which the respective item is to be 19
delivered; and 20

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed October 30, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 22, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed December 31,
2007).
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

3
a plurality of item processing units through at least one of 1
which the items are processed for delivery to the respective 2
destination addresses, each item processing unit including an 3
item handler for reading the destination address code on each 4
item, determining, for each item, through use of the destination 5
address code, a destination item processing unit which is local 6
to the destination address, and routing each item to the 7
destination item processing unit, wherein the item handlers of 8
the item processing units are configured to route items only 9
through use of the destination address codes as pre-printed on 10
the items by the at least one item printing unit prior to receipt 11
by the item processing units. 12
13
30. An item handling system, comprising: 14
at least one item printing unit for printing destination address 15
codes on items, each destination address code corresponding to 16
a destination address to which the respective item is to be 17
delivered; and 18
a plurality of item processing units through at least one of 19
which the items are processed for delivery to the respective 20
destination addresses, each item processing unit including an 21
item handler for reading the destination address code on each 22
item, determining, for each item, through use of the destination 23
address code, a destination item processing unit which is local 24
to the destination address, and routing each item to the 25
destination item processing unit; 26
wherein each destination address code is effective only for a 27
predeterminable active period, such that, after expiration of the 28
active period, the destination address code is inoperative and 29
does not allowing for processing by the item processing units. 30
31
THE REJECTIONS 32
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 33
Latta US 6,674,038 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

4
Estes et al. US 2003/0208411 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
1
Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 2
unpatentable over Estes and Latta. 3
ISSUE 4
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, 5
and 19-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estes and Latta 6
turns on whether Estes and Latta describe the routing of items via the item 7
processing units to local, destination processing units, only through the use 8
of pre-printed destination address codes, which are printed prior to receipt 9
by the item processing units. 10
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 11
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 12
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 13
Facts Related to the Prior Art 14
Estes 15
01. Estes is directed to a system, method, and article of 16
manufacture for shipping a package privately to a customer, so 17
that the sender does not learn the recipient’s identity. Estes ¶ 18
0003. Estes is also concerned with increasing the efficiency and 19
security associated with shipping packages to customer. Estes ¶ 20
0006. 21
02. Estes describes a shipping method that begins with a customer 22
placing an order and a package sent to a shipper in fulfillment of 23
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

5
that order. Estes ¶ 0012. The package includes a unique 1
identifier; such that the customer’s physical address can be 2
derived from the unique identifier. Estes ¶ 0012. The shipper 3
then delivers the package to the customer based on the derived 4
customer physical address from the package unique identifier. 5
Estes ¶ 0012. 6
03. Once logged in to the shipping computer, a customer requests 7
an electronic token from the shipping computer and the electronic 8
token is stored in the customer’s account. Estes ¶ 0074. The 9
electronic token may have certain security options such as the 10
electronic token may only be used a certain number of times or for 11
a certain amount of time before it expires. Estes ¶ 0033. The 12
customer is then enabled to select products from a merchant. 13
Estes ¶ 0076. Upon the selection of items, the merchant requests 14
the customer’s token and a payment method. Estes ¶ 0076. The 15
merchant sends the token and transaction information to a 16
payment computer and the payment computer sends the token to a 17
shipping computer. Estes ¶’s 0077-0078. The shipping computer 18
then converts the token to valid shipping label information. Estes 19
¶ 0079. The merchant affixes the shipping label information on to 20
a label, affixes the label on to the package, and sends the package 21
to a shipper. Estes ¶ 0081. 22
04. If the shipping information includes re-labeling information, the 23
shipper sends the package to a location corresponding to the re-24
labeling location information. Estes ¶ 0088. For example, if the 25
relabeling location corresponds to the customer’s local post office, 26
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

6
the shipper may send the package to the customer’s local post 1
office for relabeling. Estes ¶ 0088. In order to re-label the 2
package, the shipper uses a delivery computer to read a bar code, 3
which is part of the shipping label, and sends this information to a 4
shipping computer to convert the bar code information into label 5
information. Estes ¶ 0089. 6
Latta 7
05. Latta is directed to a mail sorting and distribution system and 8
method where bulk mailers and private mail service companies 9
utilize a network system to increase handling and cost efficiency 10
of mail processing. Latta 1:10-15. 11
06. Items are delivered to an initial processing point, such as a local 12
presort bureau nearest to the point of mail creation. Latta 6:16-19. 13
The mail has a set of national delivery points and a local 14
distribution service set. Latta 6:19-21. These mail items are 15
collected at regional processing nodes, where the regional 16
processing nodes are associated with a specific geographical 17
region. Latta 6:35-53. The mail items are sorted and are 18
delivered to a local distribution service. Latta 6:35-53. 19
ANALYSIS 20
1-3, 5-17, and 19-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 21
over Estes and Latta 22
The Appellant first contends that (1) Estes and Latta fail to describe the 23
routing of items via the item processing units to local, destination processing 24
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

7
units only through the use of pre-printed destination address codes, which 1
are printed prior to receipt by the item processing units, as per claims 1 and 2
16. App. Br. 4-6. We disagree with the Appellant. Estes describes a mail 3
processing system where the customer’s identity is private. FF 01. Estes 4
specifically describes that the customer is given a token associated with the 5
customer’s account and the shipping label information is derived from this 6
token. FF 02. Once the shipping label information is derived and affixed to 7
a label, the package is sent to a shipper. FF 02. In other words, the shipping 8
label information, including destination address information, is pre-printed 9
on to a label prior to the label being affixed to the package and prior to the 10
shipment of the package. The shipping label contains a code which signifies 11
a local destination point where the item may be re-labeled to include a final 12
destination address. FF 03. That is, the code on the package contains 13
information as to the address of a local processing unit and further contains 14
information used by the local processing unit to re-label that package locally 15
for a final destination address. 16
Latta further describes a mail processing system where the mail item has 17
two components: a national delivery points and local delivery points. FF 06. 18
Latta further describes that mail items are received by regional processing 19
units and are processed and sorted to determine local processing units. FF 20
06. Items are finally delivered from local distribution services. FF 06. As 21
such, the combination of Estes and Latta explicitly describe the routing of 22
items to local processing units through the use of pre-printed shipping labels 23
that contain bar codes, which contain address information. The Appellant 24
has further generally alleged that these descriptions of Estes and Latta are 25
different from what is required by claims 1 and 16, but has failed to provide 26
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

8
any further rationale as to how the claimed invention is distinguished from 1
the prior art. 2
The Appellant further contends that (2) a skilled person would not have 3
contemplated combining Estes and Latta. App. Br. 5-6. We disagree with 4
the Appellant. Both Estes and Latta are concerned with the routing of mail 5
items, increasing the efficiency of delivering mail items, and lower the 6
expenses associated with delivering mail items. FF 01, FF 05. Both Estes 7
and Latta solve these problems by providing systems that use local and 8
regional processing centers. FF 02, FF 06. Estes increases the efficiency by 9
associating a token with customers to expedite the entire order fulfillment 10
process and by routing items to local processing units for re-labeling. FF 11
02-03. Latta specifically increases efficiency by using geographically 12
strategic regional processing units that route items to local processing units 13
for deliver. FF 06. As such, Estes and Latta are concerned with the same 14
problem and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been 15
motivated to combine them in order to increase efficiency and security of the 16
mail routing systems. 17
The Appellant also contends that (3) Estes and Latta fail to describe that 18
each destination address code is effective only for a predeterminable active 19
period, such that after expiration of the active period, the destination address 20
code is inoperative and does not allow for processing by the item processing 21
units, as required by claims 30-31. App. Br. 6-7. The Appellant 22
specifically argues that Estes describes a token that expires, but the token is 23
converted to a shipping label and not a destination address code as required 24
by claims 30-31. App. Br. 6. We disagree with the Appellant. As noted by 25
the Appellant, Estes describes the use of a token that is converted to 26
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

9
shipping label information and the token has an expiration time. FF 03. As 1
discussed supra, a customer’s shipping address is derived from the token 2
associated with a customer’s account. FF 03. In other words, the token, 3
which may be effective only for a predetermined period of time, is used to 4
derive shipping information that is printed on to a shipping label. That is, 5
the token does contain shipping label information and further contains a 6
destination address code. The Appellant fails to provide any further 7
rationale as to how the claimed invention is distinguished from Estes’ use of 8
a token with an expiration time. 9
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-31 under 10
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estes and Latta. 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-31 under 13
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estes and Latta. 14
DECISION 15
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 16
• The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 17
as unpatentable over Estes and Latta is sustained. 18
19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 20
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 21
AFFIRMED 22
23
Appeal 2009-010479
Application 10/768,195

10
mev 1
2
Address 3
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 4
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. 5
SUITE 800 6
WASHINGTON DC 20037 7