10722231 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 2010)

Ex Parte Hammell

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 16, 2010

10722231 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P Alexandria, 0 Box 1450 Virginia 22313- 1450 www uspto gov 919 7590 12/20/20 10 PITNEY BOWES INC. APPLICATION NO. EXAMINER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECH. LAW DEPT. OBEID, FAHD A 10/722,23 1 11/25/2003 Bradley R. Hammell F-759 6693 FILING DATE 35 WATERVIEW DRIVE MSC 26-22 I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I FIRST NAMED INVENTOR SHELTON, CT 06484 3627 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. CONFIRMATION NO. NOTIFICATION DATE The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. DELIVERY MODE Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): 12/20/2010 ELECTRONIC PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte BRADLEY R. HAMMELL Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE" (paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 Bradley R. Hammell (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002). The Appellant invented a way of providing status inquiries regarding delivery of shipments (Specification I:Â¶ 0001). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]. 1. A method for a user to find pinpoint status of a shipment being transported by a carrier, comprising the steps of: [I] clicking on a shipment pinpoint symbol on a computer screen; [2] connecting automatically to an internet or private network, if a connection is not already established; [3] sending automatically a shipping pinpoint inquiry to the carrier via the internet or private network; 2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed September 2, 2008) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 17, 2008). Appeal 2009-006886 Application 101722,23 1 [4] requesting a pinpoint location of the shipment in response to the shipping status inquiry; and [5] receiving the requested pinpoint location of the shipment to the computer screen, [6] wherein the pinpoint location identifies a position between checkpoints at each of which shipment presence is monitored regardless of user inquiries. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Williams US 200210032573 A1 Mar. 14, 2002 Bednarek US 6,965,868 B1 Nov. 15,2005 Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as anticipated by Williams. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams and Bednarek. ISSUES The issues are whether Williams describes retrieving geographic pinpoint data and whether Williams describes various limitations in claims 6, 1 1, 19, and 20. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to Claim Construction 01. Pinpoint status means any shipment status that provides greater accuracy than checkpoint status. The checkpoint status comprises Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 information as to whether a shipment has reached or been scanned at one or more discrete points. Specification Â¶ 0026. Facts Related to Appellant's Disclosure 02. When a pinpoint inquiry is sent, the carrier ascertains a pinpoint location of the shipment between checkpoints. This may be done, with a global positioning satellite (GPS) device, and then the carrier can plot the GPS coordinates on a map and present the map to the user. Specification Â¶ 0022. 03. The user clicks on the pinpoint symbol to actually cause the carrier to find out where the shipment is located between checkpoints. Specification Â¶ 0024. Facts Related to the Prior Art Williams 04. Williams is directed to providing enterprises with online, multi- parcel, multi-carrier, multi-service enterprise parcel shipping management. Williams Â¶ 00 17. 05. Williams shows exemplary screen shots of entering shipping information. Several fields are for entry of "shipment" information, such as number of packages in shipment and delivery Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 address for shipment. Other fields include those for selection of the priority of shipment and carrier. Williams 101, 110, and 120.' 06. When a Shipper ships a package using Williams, one or more of the System's Servers create a new System tracking number. When a new System tracking number is created, one of the System's Database Servers adds a new package record with the newly created System tracking number to a Package Table. Williams Â¶ 0539. 07. In one embodiment, Williams' Server will track the package using the Carrier's Internet tracking routine. Williams Â¶ 0564. If the Carrier returns a valid tracking response, the Server updates the package status in the Server Database with the tracking response and returns the detailed package information to the Web Client of the requesting userlshipper. Williams Â¶ 0565. 08. Williams sends an e-mail notifying that a package has been sent. The User can enter a message or the System sends a standard message. Williams Â¶ 0258 and 497-498. One of ordinary skill understood that an automated loading of e-mail by a system process rather than by a user occurred in background processing, since the user was not involved. 3 Although these pages in Williams contain graphic images, these pages are not part of the drawing section of Williams. Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 ANALYSIS Claims 1-3 and 5-20 rejected under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Williams. Claim 1 is the parent to claims 2, 3, and 5. Claim 1 recites receiving the requested pinpoint location of the shipment to the computer screen. The Appellant argues that Williams does not describe this. Appeal Br. 9-1 1. The Appellant contends that the Specification makes it clear that pinpoint information is positional information between checkpoints. We agree. FF 01 - 03. We also find that independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-16 contain a similar limitation. The Examiner has not made any findings that Williams describes such positional information. The Examiner found that Williams described providing detailed information. Ans. 8. The Examiner made no findings that the detailed information in Williams was positional pinpoint information. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of these claims 1-3, 5, and 13-16. Claim 6 is the parent to claims 7-12 and 17-20. Claim 6 recites receiving a type of shipment selection. The Examiner found that Williams showed examples of this at Williams 101, 110, and 120, which show exemplary screen shots with fields for "shipment" data. The Appellant argues that the activity in Williams is pre-shipment activity. Appeal Br. 12. This is a distinction without a difference. The claim requires "receiving a type of shipment selection." The claim does not specify when the receipt occurs, and certainly does not preclude information regarding prospective Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 shipments. Information about a shipment prior to the actual movement of a package still provides information about that shipment. Claim 11, in combination with its parent claims 6 and 8, requires replacing or modifying a file that includes markup language and that includes at least one link to shipment tracking information, and that modification be implemented at least partly by the carrier or by the additional carrier. The Examiner found that Williams described this on page 30 in paragraphs 539-541 and 544. Ans. 6. The Appellant contends Williams' system server performs the modification rather than a carrier. Appeal Br. 12. Williams at paragraph 0539 shows that both the Examiner and Appellant are correct. FF 06. The modification occurs on a system server, but based on the action of the carrier. Thus, the requirement of claim 11 is met. Claim 19 requires that the program stored in the user device displays a location message when a delivery vehicle is a first distance from a delivery location associated with the shipment. The Examiner found that Williams described this at paragraph 0565. Ans. 6-7. The Appellant contends this is not shown. Ans. 12. This portion of Williams describes updating tracking information using the Carrier's Internet tracking routine. The Server updates the package status in the Server Database with the tracking response when tracking information is received. As tracking information is received when various checkpoints are reached, and each checkpoint is a delivery location associated with the shipment, Williams' user device displays a location message when a delivery vehicle is a first distance (zero) from a delivery location associated with the shipment. Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 Claim 20 requires that the program stored in the user device is loaded as a background process after the status indication changes. The Examiner found that Williams described this in paragraphs 0258 and 495-497 with Fig. 27. Ans. 7. The Appellant contends this is not shown. Ans. 12. Williams describes loading an e-mail message in background to notify of shipment information. FF 08. None of the remaining claims 7- 10, 12, 17, and 18 depending from claim 6 are separately argued. Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams and Bednarek. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and Bednarek does not remedy the deficiency in Williams. Thus, the rejection of claim 4 also fails to have a prima facie case. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Rejecting claims 1-3,5, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as anticipated by Williams is in error. Rejecting claims 6-12 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as anticipated by Williams is not in error. Rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams and Bednarek is in error. Appeal 2009-006886 Application 10/722,23 1 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as anticipated by Williams is not sustained. The rejection of claims 6-12 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as anticipated by Williams is sustained. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams and Bednarek is not sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mev Address PITNEY BOWES INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECH. LAW DEPT. 35 WATERVIEW DRIVE MSC 26-22 SHELTON CT 06484