Ex Parte Harding

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2007

10700364 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered 1
today is not binding precedent of the Board 2
3
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 4
____________________ 5
6
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 7
AND INTERFERENCES 8
____________________ 9
10
Ex parte JOSEPH J. HARDING 11
____________________ 12
13
Appeal 2006-3186 14
Application 10/700,364 15
Technology Center 3700 16
____________________ 17
18
Decided: September 12, 2007 19
____________________ 20
21
Before: TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and DAVID B. 22
WALKER Administrative Patent Judges. 23
24
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 25
26
27
DECISION ON APPEAL 28
29
STATEMENT OF CASE 30
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 31
of claims 12-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 32
Appellant invented a packaging system for providing a controlled 33
quantity of dunnage material for top-filling a container in which one or more 34
objects are packed for shipping (Specification 1). 35
Claim 12 under appeal reads as follows: 36
Appeal 2006-3186
Application 10/700,364

2
12. A void-fill system for automatically determining and 1
producing an amount of dunnage material sufficient to fill the void 2
left in a container in which one or more objects have been placed, 3
comprising: 4
a dunnage dispenser which is operable to dispense a controlled 5
amount of a dunnage material; 6
a void-measuring apparatus which measures the amount of void 7
left in a container after one or more objects have been placed in the 8
container, the void-measuring apparatus being operative to command 9
the dunnage dispenser to dispense a prescribed amount of dunnage 10
material; and 11
an input device connected to the void-measuring apparatus 12
which enables selection of a void-fill density from a plurality of void-13
fill densities, and wherein the void-measuring apparatus, in response 14
to a selected void-fill density, varies the amount of dunnage material 15
that the dunnage dispenser is commanded to dispense per measured 16
volume of void, thereby to obtain the selected void-filled density. 17
18
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 19
being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being 20
unpatentable over Harding. 21
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as 22
being unpatentable over Harding in view of Hale or Reynolds. 23
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 24
appeal is: 25
Hale US 3,819,918 Jun. 25, 1974 26
Reynolds US 5,719,678 Feb. 17, 1998 27
Harding US 5,871,429 Feb. 16, 1999 28
29
Appellant contends that Harding does not disclose or suggest an input 30
device connected to a void-measuring apparatus which enables the selection 31
of a void-fill density from a plurality of void-fill densities. 32
33
Appeal 2006-3186
Application 10/700,364

3
ISSUE 1
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in 2
finding that Harding discloses or suggests an input device connected to a 3
void-measuring apparatus which enables the selection of a void-fill density 4
from a plurality of void-fill densities. 5
FINDINGS OF FACT 6
Appellant’s invention is a void-fill system which includes an input 7
device 98 connected to a logic device 76. An operator may select a void fill 8
density from a plurality of void fill densities (Specification 11). Upon the 9
selection of a void-fill density an input or logic device 76 varies the amount 10
of dunnage material to be dispensed per measured volume of void 11
(Specification 11). For example, if minimal protection is needed a less 12
dunnage is dispensed per unit volume but if maximum protection is needed 13
more dunnage is dispensed per unit volume. (Specification 11). 14
Harding discloses a void-fill system which includes a void volume 15
probe which measures the void volume of a container to determine the 16
volume of padding necessary to fill the container (Harding, col 18, ll. 29-17
34). The information from the probe is transferred to a logic device 48 18
(Harding, col. 18, ll. 19-21). The logic device 48 determines the amount of 19
pad and length of pad to produce to adequately cushion the container 20
(Harding, col. 18, ll. 10-14). Harding does not include an input device or 21
logic device which enables the selection of a void-fill density from a 22
plurality of void-fill densities. Harding discloses only one void-fill density 23
i.e., the density necessary to fill the container. Harding does not allow the 24
operator to vary the amount of dunnage to fill the container. 25
Appeal 2006-3186
Application 10/700,364

4
Hale and Reynolds do not disclose an input device which enables the 1
selection of void-fill density from a plurality of void-fill densities. 2
3
DISCUSSION 4
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 5
§ 102 as anticipated by Harding or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 6
as being unpatentable over Harding. Harding does not disclose nor does 7
Harding suggest an input or logic device which enables an operator to select 8
a void-fill density from a plurality of void-fill densities as required by claims 9
12 and 14. 10
We will also not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 15 under 35 11
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harding in view of Hale or 12
Reynolds because claims 13 and 15 depend from claims 12 and 14 and thus 13
require the input device which enables an operator to select a void-fill 14
density from a plurality of void-fill densities and neither Hale nor Reynolds 15
remedies the deficiency of Harding. 16
Appeal 2006-3186
Application 10/700,364

5
CONCLUSION 1
The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 2
3
REVERSED 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
hh 12
13
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 14
1621 EUCLID AVENUE 15
NINETEENTH FLOOR 16
CLEVELAND, OH 44115 17