Ex Parte Keane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

13488868 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/488,868 06/05/2012 Joseph J. KEANE G-598-03 1668
919 7590 01/22/2018
PITNEY BOWES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT LAW DEPT.
37 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
MSC 01-152
DANBURY, CT 06810
EXAMINER
KOTIS, JOSHUA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
iptl@pb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH J. KEANE, DONATO C. FAROLE, and
GLENN A. NESTER
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joseph J. Keane et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 13—23, 25—28, and 30—
38.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Pitney Bowes, Inc. Br. 2.
2 Claims 11, 12, 24, and 29 are cancelled. Br. 11, 14, 15 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1, A method for operating an automated mail tray filling
mechanism, the tray filling mechanism being vertically
movable to be lowered and lifted into and out of a mail tray,
mail trays being mo ved on a mall tray transport beneath the
mail tray filling mechanism, the method comprising:
ad vancing an empty mail tray to underneath the tray
filling mechanism;
lowering a feeding arm down, into the first mail tray to a
position at a forward end of the mail tray;
feeding envelopes from the mail tray filling mechanism
into the mail tray through the lowered feeding arm:
detecting a pack, pressure of envelopes in the mail tray on
the lowered feeding arm and when the pack pressure exceeds a
predetermined threshold moving the relative position of the
feed arm towards a back end of the mail tray and resuming
feeding envelopes after the pack pressure is below the
predetermined threshold;
lifting the feeding arm from the mail tray when it is full;
advancing a next empty mail tray to underneath the tray
filling mechanism; and
concurrent with the steps for feeding en velopes,
determi ning whether a repack interval has been reached and
initiating a repack operation if the repack interval has been
reached, wherein the repack operation comprises moving the
relative position of the feed arm towards a front end of the mail
tray to compress a stack of envelopes already fed into the mail
tray.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
US 3,918,704
US 4,656,815
Sugiyama
Jaton
2
Nov. 11, 1975
Apr. 14, 1987
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
Keane
Ricci
Klapp
US 6,398,204 B1 June 4, 2002
US 7,117,657 B2 Oct. 10, 2006
US 7,497,067 B2 Mar. 3, 2009
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—7, 13—20, 23, 25, 26, and 30-36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jaton and Sugiyama. Final Act.
2-11.
II. Claims 9, 10, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jaton, Sugiyama, and Ricci. Id. at 11—13.
III. Claims 21, 22, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jaton, Sugiyama, and Keane. Id. at 13—15.
IV. Claims 8 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jaton, Sugiyama, and Klapp. Id. at 15—16.
OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 1—7, 15—20, 23, 25, 26, and 31—36
Appellants argue claims 1—7, 15—20, 23, 25, 26, and 31—36 as a group.
Appeal Br. 3—5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims
2—7, 15—20, 23, 25, 26, and 31—36 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Jaton for most of the limitations of
independent claim 1, but acknowledges that Jaton fails to disclose the
claimed steps of “detecting a pack pressure of envelopes in the mail tray on
the lowered feeding arm and when the pack pressure exceeds a
predetermined threshold moving the relative position of the feed arm
towards a back end of the mail tray and resuming feeding envelopes after the
3
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
pack pressure is below the predetermined threshold;'’ and “determining
whether a repack interval lias been reached and initiating a repack operation
if the repack interval has been reached, wherein the repack operation
comprises moving the relative position of the feed arm towards a front end
of the mail tray to compress a stack of envelopes already fed into the mail
tray.” Br. 9 (Claims App.); Final Act. 3—4.
The Examiner turns to Sugiyama to loach these steps, noting in
its background teaching of providing a pressure detecting device
in a sorting system (Final Act. 4), such that “[i]f the pressure exceed[s] a []
predetermined value, the movable head would be moved in a direction away
from the storer [that temporarily stores sheet-like material], and on the
contrary , if the pressure became lower than the predetermined value, the
movable head would be moved in a direction towards the storer” (Sugiyama,
1:51 61). The Elxaminer finds that the disclosed movement towards
storer “can be considered initiating a ‘repack’ operation as defined.” Final
Act. 4 (italics omitted). The Examiner further finds that “[i]n order to
properly pack and control movable filling heads and[/]or tray conveyors, the
use of inputs from pressure sensors is well known in the art.” Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to include a pressure
detecting step using a pressure sensor and control as well as hav[ing] the
filling mechanism movable as taught by Sugiyama” so that “an optimum
storage condition can be provided for the materials being stored as taught by
Sugiyama.” Id. (citing Sugiyama, 7:5—7) (boldface omitted).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Sugiyama’s teaching
of movement of the movable head to increase pressure if the pressure goes
below a predetermined value is in error because it ‘"do[es] not apply a correct
4
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
interpretation of ‘repacking’” that is consistent with the Specification. Br, 4
(citing Spec, ff 57-58). Appellants assert that “repacking” requires that
“the feed arm must affirmatively move[] towards the envelope pack to
compress it” and that “[t]his is in contrast to the normal operation [of
Sugiyama] whereby the feed arm remains stationary, or moves away from
the stack to relieve pressure.” Id. The Examiner responds that even if
movement towards the stack, of materials is not the normal operation of
Sugiyama, Sugiyama still discloses movement of a moveable head toward
the stack of materials and thus, “still discloses a repacking operation, as
claimed.” Ans. 7. Appellants have not persuaded us that Sugiyama’s
teaching of moving the movable head in a direction toward the storer if the
pressure is lower than a predetermined value fails to constitute the claimed
repack operation.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner “failfs] to address the concept
of the ‘repack interval.” Br. 4. The Examiner responds in part that the
Specification “specifies that the repack interval may be based on a
predetermined pressure profile sensed,” and this is what is taught by
Sugiyama. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner. The Specification
contemplates that “[t]he repack interval may also he based on observation of
a predetermined pressure profile being sensed on the feeding arm from the
stack of envelops, for example[,] if the pack pressure sensor 52 was a strain
gauge that found the pressure went below a predetermined threshold.” Spec.
If 58 [boldface omitted]; see also id. f 14 (“The interval for performing a
repack can be . . . [based] upon observation of a predetermined pressure
profile being sensed on the feeding arm.”). Appellants have not persuaded
us that Sugiyama’s teaching of moving the movable head in a direction
5
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
toward the storer if the pressure detected by a. pressure sensing device is
lower than a predetermined value fails to constitute determining whether a
repack interval lias been reached and initiating a repack operation if the
repack interval has been reached, as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Jaton and Sugiyama renders obvious the
subject matter of independent claim 1. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2—7, 15—20, 23, 25, 26, and 31—36 which fall with
claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jaton and Sugiyama.
Claims 13, 14, and 30
Dependent claim 13 recites that “the repack interval is initiated as a
function of the feed arm having moved towards the back end of the mail tray
by a predetermined distance,” and dependent claim 14 recites that “the
repack interval is initiated as a function of a predetermined number of
envelopes having been fed into the mail tray.” Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Dependent claim 30 recites that “the apparatus control is configured to
initiate the repack interval as a function of a predetermined number of
envelopes having been fed into the mail tray.” Id. at 15 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that “Sugiyama’s description of a system that adjusts
a moveable head to stay within a certain pressure range is even less relevant”
to these dependent claims. Br. 6. The Examiner responds in part that “[t]he
control of the feed arm based on the pressure profile as disclosed by
Sugiyama reads on the claimed limitation because the pressure profile is a
function of both the number of envelopes and a position of the feed arm.”
6
Appeal 2017-003113
Application 13/488,868
Ans. 8—9. Appellants do not contest this finding, and, consequently, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner’s position is unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Jaton and Sugiyama renders obvious the subject matter of
claims 13, 14, and 30. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jaton and Sugiyama.
Rejections II—IV
Appellants’ arguments in support of the patentability of claims 8—10,
21, 22, 27, 28, 37, and 38 solely relate to the perceived deficiencies in Jaton
and Sugiyama and the failure of the additional references to cure these
perceived deficiencies. Br. 6—7. Because we have found no such
deficiencies, we also sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of:
claims 9, 10, and 28 as unpatentable over Jaton, Sugiyama, and Ricci; claims
21, 22, 37, and 38 as unpatentable over Jaton, Sugiyama, and Keane; and
claims 8 and 27 as unpatentable over Jaton, Sugiyama, and Klapp.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—10, 13—23, 25—28, and
30-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7