Ex Parte HancockDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201311317562 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARK S. HANCOCK ____________________ Appeal 2011-003442 Application 11/317,562 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003442 Application 11/317,562 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 11. Claims 2, 7-9, and 13 have been canceled, and claims 6 and 10 have been allowed. Claims 3-5, 12, and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but have been deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a method and system for controlling a staging transport in a mail processing machine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mail processing machine for moving a plurality of mail items from upstream to downstream, the mail processing machine operable at least in a first steady state mode and in a second staging mode, said mail processing machine comprising: a staging section; and a non-staging section positioned upstream from the staging section and arranged to transport mail items one at a time to the staging section, wherein the non-staging section has a first movement mechanism to move the mail items downstream onto the staging section substantially at a constant first speed, wherein two adjacent ones of the mail items in the non-staging section are separated by a first gap; and the staging section has a second movement mechanism comprising a controller to transport the mail items received from the non-staging section at a controllable second speed, wherein a first mail item in the staging section is separated from a subsequent mail item by a second gap, wherein Appeal 2011-003442 Application 11/317,562 3 when the mail processing machine is operated in the first steady state mode, the second speed is controlled by the controller such that the second gap is substantially equal to the first gap, and when the mail processing machine is operated in the second staging mode, the first movement mechanism continues to operate at the first speed while the second speed of the staging section is controlled by the controller to receive mail items at the first speed and to decelerate after the mail item is received, thereby causing the second gap within the staging section to be smaller than the first gap, and wherein the staging section is controlled by the controller, after decelerating the first mail item, to accelerate to receive the subsequent mail item from the non-staging section, and then to decelerate both the first and subsequent mail items to be stored in the staging section separated by the second gap. REFERENCES Buhayar Lohmann US 3,827,545 US 5,449,166 Aug. 6, 1974 Sep. 12, 1995 REJECTION Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lohmann and Buhayar. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Claim 1 is drawn to a mail-processing machine, comprising a non- staging section upstream of a staging section, that operates in two modes: a first steady-state mode, and a second staging mode. Br. 20. In the first steady-state mode the non-staging section moves mail items at a substantially constant first speed, with adjacent mail items separated by a first gap; the staging section receives the mail items from the non-staging section and moves them at a controllable second speed such that they are Appeal 2011-003442 Application 11/317,562 4 separated by a second gap that is substantially equal to the first gap. Id. In the second staging mode, the non-staging section continues moving mail at the first speed while the staging section is operated by a controller to: (1) receive a mail item at the first speed; (2) decelerate after receiving the item to cause the second gap between adjacent mail items to be smaller than the first gap; (3) accelerate to receive the subsequent mail item from the non- staging section; and (4) decelerate both the first and second items to be stored. Id. at 20-21. Claim 11 is drawn to a method of transporting mail items in a mail processing machine that is substantially the same as the operation of the machine of claim 1. Id. at 21. The Examiner found that Lohmann discloses (1) a non-staging section moving mail items downstream onto the staging section at substantially a constant first speed, wherein two adjacent items in the non-staging section are separated by a first gap; (2) a staging section with a controller that transports mail items received from the non-staging section at a controllable second speed, wherein two adjacent items are separated by a second gap; and (3) wherein the machine is operated in a first steady-state mode such that the staging-section controller controls the second speed to ensure that the second gap is substantially equal to the first gap. Ans. 3-4 (citing Lohmann, col. 4, ll. 24-27, col. 4, l. 32 – col. 5, l. 2; figs. 3-4c). Noting that Lohmann does not explicitly disclose the machine operating in the second staging mode, the Examiner relied on Buhayar for this teaching. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner: Buhayar discloses that it is well known to operate a sheet processing machine (Fig. 1) in a mode such that a first mechanism (18) continues to operate at a first speed while a second speed of a staging section (including 14 and 16) is Appeal 2011-003442 Application 11/317,562 5 controlled by a controller (speed regulator in Abstract) to receive items at the first speed and to decelerate after the item is received, thereby causing a second gap within the staging section (including 14 and 16) to be smaller than a first gap between two adjacent items in a non-staging section (including 12) of Buhayar. Ans. 5 (citing Buhayar, col. 7, ll. 48-58; fig. 1). The Examiner then found that Buhayar discloses that “spacing between items needs to be changed for the purpose of performing downstream operations.”1 Ans. 5 (citing Buhayar, col. 1, ll. 21-35). The Examiner concluded that: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate the Lohmann et al. apparatus in a second mode such that it receives items at a first speed and decelerates after the item is received, thereby causing the second gap within the staging section (including 25) of the Lohmann et al. apparatus to be smaller than the first gap between two adjacent items in the non-staging section (including 24 of Lohmann et al. for the purpose of performing downstream operations, as taught by Buhayar. Id. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lohmann to cause the spacing between the items in the outlet conveyor to be smaller than the spacing in the inlet conveyor. Br. 18. The Examiner’s reason for obviousness – that a person of ordinary skill would have modified Lohmann to operate in the staging mode taught 1 Buhayar teaches an apparatus for manufacturing “discrete, flexible web products” such as disposable diapers, where “it is often necessary to precisely space the products a known distance from each other prior to performing subsequent operations thereon by downstream tooling,” and to adjust the spacing to account for different-sized products. Buhayar, col. 1, ll. 8-49. Appeal 2011-003442 Application 11/317,562 6 by Buhayar to reduce the gap between adjacent mail items – lacks a rational underpinning. Lohmann teaches an apparatus that rotates mail items while ensuring that the gaps between adjacent items before and after rotation are identical. Lohmann, col. 1, ll. 34-43. In fact, Lohmann warns that rotation without maintaining the same gap may result in “overlapping of the items, which can lead to jams and functional breakdown of the system.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 29-31. Lohmann thus warns against operating its system in a way that would reduce the gap between mail items, contrary to the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Lohmann in light of Buhayar. Because the Examiner’s reason for obviousness lacks a rational underpinning, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11 as obvious over Lohmann and Buhayar. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11 is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation