Ex Parte Carpenter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201612269484 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/269,484 11112/2008 28524 7590 02/25/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael D. Carpenter 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. 2007P24500US01 1400 EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAELE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2016 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL D. CARPENTER and MICHAEL 0. NORRIS Appeal2013-008980 Application 12/269,4841 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LYNNE H. BROWNE and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael D. Carpenter and Michael 0. Norris (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Industry, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal2013-008980 Application 12/269,484 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 6, and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. A computer implemented method for determining the weights of flat articles being sorted, comprising: receiving sensor information resulting in data for individual flat articles, which data comprises classifier physical attributes other than weight of the flat articles; building a mathematical three-dimensional surface model of each flat article based on the data; comparing each three-dimensional surface model to historical models stored in computer memory; comparing the data to classifiers stored in the computer memory; and assigning a weight value to each flat article based on classifier matches and the comparison of the three-dimensional models with the historical models. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The following Examiner's rejections are before us for review. 1. Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 17,and 18arerejectedunder35U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Massucci (US 2004/0122778 Al, pub. June 24, 2004) and Champlin (US 7,085,677 Bl, iss. Aug. 1, 2006). 2. Claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Massucci, Champlin, and Lile (US 6,445,808 Bl, iss. Sept. 3, 2002). 3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Champlin and Lile. 2 Appeal2013-008980 Application 12/269,484 ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection: Obviousness of Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 over Massucci and Champlin We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness in rejecting claims 1-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 over Massucci and Champlin. Appeal Br. 14-72; see also Reply Br. 5-26. The Examiner relies on Champlin for disclosing a computer implemented method for determining the weight of flat articles including, inter alia, "[b ]uilding a mathematical three-dimensional surface model of each flat article based on the data." Final Act. 3 (citing Champlin, col. 19, 11. 34-52). After repeating the disclosure of Champlin at column 19, lines 34-52, Appellants "note[] that nothing in this portion [of Champlin] relates to a mathematical three-dimensional surface model of each flat article, as used throughout the elements of the independent Claims." Appeal Br. 18. Appellants continue by pointing out that "[ e ]ven assuming, for the sake of argument, that the model of Champlin is a three dimensional model, it is not a three-dimensional surface model," and contending that "[i]t is apparent that data capable of building a mathematical three-dimensional surface model of each of the flat article[ s] is neither captured nor stored in Champlin, and Champlin does not build or compare such a mathematical three-dimensional surface model." Id. at 19-20. We agree with Appellants that Champlin fails to disclose "building a mathematical three-dimensional surface model of each flat article," as recited by claim 1. Independent claims 6 and 8 contain substantially the same limitation. We find that the 3 Appeal2013-008980 Application 12/269,484 Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is not supported by evidence and, thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that "[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand."). For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1- 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 over Massucci and Champlin. Second Ground of Rejection: Obviousness of Claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 over Massuccci, Champlin, and Lile The Examiner's rejections of claims 11 and 12, which depend from claim 8, claims 15 and 16, which depend from claim 1, and 19 and 20, which depend from claim 6, are based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to the disclosure of Champlin. Final Act. 4-6. The addition of Lile does not remedy the deficiencies of Champlin, as discussed supra. Accordingly, for similar reasons as discussed above for claims 1, 6, and 8, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Third Ground of Rejection: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 over Champlin and Lile. The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 over Champlin and Lile based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to the disclosure of Champlin. Final Act. 6-9. The addition of Lile does not remedy the deficiencies of Champlin, as discussed supra. 4 Appeal2013-008980 Application 12/269,484 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 over Champlin and Lile. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation