Ex Parte Roth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2012

11142233 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte J. EDWARD ROTH, DAVID J. COFFELT,
and BRUCE H. HANSON
____________

Appeal 2010-003677
Application 11/142,233
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003677
Application 11/142,233

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Claims 1 and 12 illustrate the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A device for sequencing disparate products, comprising:
a first feeder mechanism feeding a stream of a first
product type in a pre-sequenced order;
a packet former which packetizes the first product type
into packets having common product information;
a second feeder mechanism feeding a separation item
before or after each packet of the packets formed by the
packet former;
a third feeder mechanism feeding a stream of second
product type though a sequencing process;
a reading device reading product information of the first
product type and the second product type;
a controller coupled to at least the first, second and third
feeder and the reading device; and
a pausing device, which under control of the controller,
intermittently pauses at least one of the packets formed by
the packet former and the second stream of the second
product type, during second pass, to intermix and sequence
the packets and the second stream of the second product
type having the common product information into a merged
stream of first and second product type.

12. A sequencing method, comprising:
providing a first type of product in a pre-sequenced order;
packetizing the first type of product into packets based on
common information;
placing a separation item at a beginning or end point of
each of the packets;
sorting a second type of product through a first pass sort
into delivery groups; and
Appeal 2010-003677
Application 11/142,233

3
during sequencing of the second type of product,
intermixing the packets of the first type of product
associated with a common group of the second type of
product into a stream to form a merged sequential order of
the first type of product and the second type of product with
a separation item between groupings.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Henig US 3,757,939 Sep. 11, 1973
Helm US 3,966,186 Jun. 29, 1976
Kechel US 2004/0007510 A1 Jan. 15, 2004
Carey US 2006/0180519 A1 Aug. 17, 2006

Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 12 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kechel.
2. Claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kechel and Henig.
3. Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kechel and Helm.
4. Claim 17 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kechel, Helm, and Carey.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 12 and 18 as anticipated by Kechel
The Examiner found that Kechel discloses the sequencing methods of
claims 12 and 18. Ans. 3 (citing Kechel [0005]). The Examiner found that
Kechel provides a first type of product in a pre-sequenced order by feeding
and sorting items. Ans. 8 (citing Kechel [0005] part (a)). The Examiner
further found that Kechel intermixes packets of the first type of product with
Appeal 2010-003677
Application 11/142,233

4
a second type of product to form a merged sequential order of first and
second types of product with a separation item between groupings. Ans. 9,
11 (citing Kechel [0005], part (d)). The Examiner also found “the fact that
the first product is provided as being pre-sequenced shows that the first type
of product had to be sequenced at a previous point in time.” Ans. 10.
We agree with Appellants that Kechel does not pre-sequence a first
type of product and then intermix the pre-sequenced/sequenced first type of
product with a second type of product as the second type of product is being
sequenced. Br. 7-8, 10, 14.1 Instead, Kechel sorts batches of letters, flats,
and dividers separately according to a delivery destination code. Kechel
[0005] steps (a), (b), (c). Then, Kechel sorts these sorted letters, flats, and
dividers in at least one subsequent sorting pass to create a series of groups of
letters and/or flats for each destination in delivery route order with a divider
in between each group. See Kechel [0005], step (d); Br. 8-9, 14-15. Thus,
Kechel sorts letters, flats, and dividers into sequential (i.e., delivery) order at
the same time. Kechel also does not place a separation item (i.e., a divider)
between packets of a sequenced first type of product prior to intermixing the
first type of product with the second type of product as called for in claims
12 and 18. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 18.

Claim 19 as obvious over Kechel and Henig
The Examiner found that Henig discloses forming the first type of
product into packets of about the same thickness as that of the second type

1 The Examiner and Appellants interpret the limitations “providing a first
type of product in a pre-sequenced order” (claim 12) and “providing a first
type of product in a sequenced order” (claim 18) as ordering a sorted product
in a delivery or walk order of a mail carrier (Ans. 3, 11-13; Br. 7-8, 13-14).
Appeal 2010-003677
Application 11/142,233

5
of product prior to intermixing as called for in claim 19, which depends from
claim 18. Ans. 6. As we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18, we also
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 19 because Henig does not cure the
deficiencies of Kechel as to claim 18.

Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 20 as obvious over Kechel and Helm
The Examiner found that Kechel discloses the claimed sequencing
device of claim 1, except for second and third feeder mechanisms and a
pausing device, which Helm discloses. Ans. 4. The Examiner also found
that Helm’s pausing device operates under control of a controller and
intermittently pauses at least one of the packets formed by a packet former
and a second stream of the second product type to intermix and sequence the
packets and second stream of second product. Ans. 4, 17. The Examiner
also found that Appellants have not provided any information on a pause
device to help construe what a pause device is or what it does. Ans. 17.
We agree with Appellants that Helm does not intermittently “pause”
packets from a packet former, or a second stream of a second product type,
during a second pass that intermixes and sequences the packets and second
product type. See Br. 21-23. Instead, Helm collates primary and secondary
inserts via conveyors (primary insert conveyor 30, collating chain 40, and
secondary insert conveyors 56, 94) that run at different preselected speeds in
timed relation with one another. Col. 2, ll. 63-65; col. 3, ll. 12-16; col. 4, ll.
22-48; col. 6, ll. 27-63. The Examiner’s finding that conveyors operating
continuously at different speeds in timed relation “delay” feeding of packets
to create a “pause” in the feed operation (Ans. 17) is not consistent with the
Appeal 2010-003677
Application 11/142,233

6
ordinary meaning of “pause”2 or Appellants’ Specification.3 As such, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims 2-11 based on
Kechel and Helm. We also cannot sustain the rejection of claims 13-16,
which depend from claim 12, or the rejection of claim 20, which depends
from claim 18.

Claim 17 as obvious over Kechel, Helm, and Carey
Claim 17 depends from claim 12 and calls for inducting a late arriving
first type of product into the stream during intermixing. The Examiner
found that Carey discloses this feature. Ans. 6. Because we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 12, we also cannot sustain the rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls

2 An ordinary meaning of “pause” includes “to stop temporarily” or “to
linger for a time.” See MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE® DICTIONARY, p.
909 (11th ed. 2005).
3 Appellants disclose that pausing device 124 can pause a stream of products
or a formed packet until it is an appropriate time to induct the packet into a
mail or product stream. Spec. 13, l. 15 to 14, l. 6; Spec. 21, ll. 5-9 (letter,
flat, and other feeders work in conjunction with one another (i.e., pausing
and starting) to inject letters, flats, and other items into a sequential, merged
stream); Spec. 21, l. 18 to 22, l. 7. See Br. 3, 23-24.