Ex Parte Curtis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 5, 2009

10410774 (B.P.A.I. May. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW J. CURTIS and JOEHANNAH CURTIS
____________________

Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided:1 May 5, 2009
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 3-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
Appellants invented systems and methods for identifying and tracking
funeral containers (Specification [01]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. In a computing device operated by a
funeral container tracking coordinator, a method
for identifying and tracking a plurality of funeral
containers, comprising:
the funeral container tracking coordinator
generating a plurality of identification numbers;
the funeral container tracking coordinator
providing a database for uniquely associating each
identification number in the plurality of
identification numbers with one of the plurality of
funeral containers;
the funeral container tracking coordinator
sending the plurality of identification numbers to a
funeral container manufacturer;
the funeral container tracking coordinator
receiving from the funeral container manufacturer
an identification number selected from the
plurality of identification numbers;
the funeral container tracking coordinator
receiving from the funeral container manufacturer
funeral container information describing a funeral
container; and
the funeral container tracking coordinator
entering the funeral container information into the
database in such a way that the funeral container
information is uniquely associated with the
identification number.
2
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Katz et al. US 4,816,824 Mar. 28, 1989
Lee et al. US 6,212,638 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Torres WO 02/082228 A2 Oct. 17, 2002
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Katz in view of Lee; and rejected claims 1 and 3-
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz in view of Lee
and Torres.
We AFFIRM.
ISSUES
Did the Appellants show the Examiner erred in finding that there was
proper motivation to combine the funeral containers of Torres with the
identifying and tracking system of Katz?
Did the Appellants show the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined teachings of Katz and Lee teaches a funeral container tracking
coordinator receiving from the funeral container manufacturer an
identification number selected from the plurality of identification numbers as
recited in independent claim 1?
Did the Appellants show the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Katz and Torres teaches a funeral container tracking
coordinator receiving from the funeral container manufacturer funeral
container information describing a funeral container, and the funeral
container tracking coordinator entering the funeral container information
into the database in such a way that the funeral container information is
3
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
uniquely associated with the identification number, as recited in independent
claim 1?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Specification
Appellants invented systems and methods for identifying and tracking
funeral containers (p.1, [01]).
Information describing the funeral containers may include the type of
funeral container (e.g., casket, urn, etc.), the color of the funeral container,
the model number of the funeral container, the material used to make the
funeral container, the model number of the funeral container, and the
material used to make the funeral container, etc. (p. 6, [31]).

Katz
Katz discloses a system for individually tracing units of merchandise
with non-counterfeitable authentication devices or tags as such tags, with
merchandise, move through channels of commerce. The memory of the
authentication devices or tags can include meaningful information on the
merchandise (Abstract).
It is desirable to obtain effective data on an individual merchandise of
concern (stolen, lost, and so on) as opposed to accounting for merchandise
of little concern that is properly moving through channels of commerce (col.
2, ll. 29-33; col. 7, ll. 64-67).
Management terminal 42 has general access to central processor and
memory 40, while manufacture terminal 44, warehouse terminal 46 and
distribution terminal 48 have more limited access (col. 6, ll. 12-19).
4
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Management terminal 42 initially prepares tags 10 for use with a
batch of goods. The identification numbers, SKU numbers and the present
state of each individual tag 10 is registered in central processor and memory
40 (col. 6, ll. 29-54).
Tags 10 are transported to manufacture terminal 44. At manufacture
terminal 44, when tag 10 is individually attached to a unit of finished
merchandise, manufacture terminal 44 sends a signal via channel 52 and the
occurrence for each individual tag 10 is recorded in central processor and
memory 40 by batch set number and unit identification number.
Manufacture terminal 44 may also send to central processor and memory 40
other information either read from tag 10 or supplementally inputted by a
keyboard (col. 6, l. 55 through col. 7, l. 27).
Section 90 of tag 10 may include information indicating the time and
manufacture location of the associated merchandise (col. 9, ll. 14-16).
Location terminal 62 in Fig. 3 is representative of manufacture
terminal 44 (col. 8, ll. 13-16).
The utilization of a combination of information with the ability to
define subsets is desirable, because such detailed information makes the
tracing of goods, particularly goods that have gone astray, more effective
(col. 7, l. 64 through col. 8, l. 2).

Torres
Torres discloses funeral containers including the manufacturer’s name
222, model name 224, model number 226, description 228, material 230,
display name 232 and display description 234 (Fig. 12; p. 20, ll. 15-18).

5
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS
Motivation to Combine Katz and Torres
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that there was not proper motivation to combine the
funeral containers of Torres with the identifying and tracking system of Katz
(App. Br. 7, 10-11; Reply Br. 7). Torres discloses features of funeral
containers (Fig. 12; p. 20, ll. 15-18). Katz discloses that the utilization of a
combination of information with the ability to define subsets is desirable,
because such detailed information makes the tracing of goods, particularly
goods that have gone astray (e.g., stolen, lost, so on), more effective (col. 2,
ll. 29-33; col. 7, l. 64 through col. 8, l. 2). Accordingly, one skilled in the art
would have been motivated to combine Torres and Katz, because including
detailed information about the features of the funeral containers of Torres to
the identifying and tracking system of Katz would make it easier to trace
funeral containers that have gone astray (e.g., counterfeited) (Ans. 14-15).

Selected Identification Number
6
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that a combination of Katz and Lee fails to teach a
funeral container tracking coordinator receiving from the funeral container
manufacturer an identification number selected from the plurality of
identification numbers as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8).
Management terminal 42 in Katz has general access to central processor and
memory 40, while manufacture terminal 44, warehouse terminal 46 and
distribution terminal 48 have more limited access. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of management terminal 42 and
memory 40 can be corresponded to the funeral container tracking
coordinator under a broadest reasonable interpretation (Ans. 12-13). See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Katz discloses that manufacture terminal 44 receives a batch of tags
10, sends a signal to memory 40 via channel 52 when each individual tag 10
is attached to a unit of finished merchandise, and the occurrence for each
individual tag 10 is recorded in memory 40 by unit identification number.
Thus, the combination of management terminal 42 and memory 40 receives,
from manufacture terminal 44, information including the tag’s identification
number as recited in independent claim 1.

Information Describing Funeral Container
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that a combination of Katz and Torres fails to teach a
funeral container tracking coordinator receiving from the funeral container
manufacturer funeral container information describing a funeral container,
and the funeral container tracking coordinator entering the funeral container
7
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
information into the database in such a way that the funeral container
information is uniquely associated with the identification number, as recited
in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 6). Katz discloses that
manufacture terminal 44 sends to memory 40 information either read from
tag 10 or supplementally inputted by a keyboard. Such information may
include the time and manufacture location of the associated merchandise.
Even assuming that Katz does not explicitly disclose “information
describing a funeral container,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate from a reading of Torres and Katz, that including detailed
information about the features of the funeral containers of Torres to the
identifying and tracking system of Katz would make it easier to trace funeral
containers that have gone astray (e.g., counterfeited). In accordance with
this motivation, manufacture terminal 44 could send to memory 40 features
set forth in Torres for funeral containers, such as the type of funeral
container (e.g., casket, urn, etc.), the color of the funeral container, the
model number of the funeral container, the material used to make the funeral
container, etc., so as to make it easier to identify individual funeral
containers that have gone astray. At least some of the identified features in
Torres are “information describing a funeral container” as recited in
independent claim 1. These features would be “uniquely associated with the
identification number” so as to facilitate the tracing of individual funeral
containers as set forth in the motivation.

8
Appeal 2008-3040
Application 10/410,774

191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
Other Claims
We sustain both the rejections of claim 1 for the reasons set forth
above. As claims 3-8 depend from independent claim 1 and are not argued
separately, we also sustain the rejections of those claims.

CONCLUSION
The Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 3-8.
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
AFFIRMED

JRG

MUNSCH, HARDT, KOPF & HARR, P.C.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DOCKET CLERK
3800 LINCOLN PLAZA
500N AKARD STREET
DALLAS, TX 75201

9