Ex Parte Schuessler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 8, 2009

10748400 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte FREDERICK SCHUESSLER 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2008-004668 11
Application 10/748,400 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided:1 July 9, 2009 16
____________________ 17
18
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and 19
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
21
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
23
24
DECISION ON APPEAL25

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a Final 2
Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 3
(2002). 4
Appellant invented systems and methods for providing a user with a 5
personalized shipment system (Abstract). 6
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed 7
subject matter: 8
1. A method for providing a user with a 9
personalized shipment system, comprising: 10
registering a user by obtaining user data; 11
associating the user data with a unique user 12
identifier; 13
generating label data for each of a plurality 14
of labels, each label including a unique label 15
identifier in machine language; 16
associating the label identifier with the user 17
identifier in a computer database; 18
receiving an item to be shipped including 19
one of the labels and recipient data located on the 20
item, the recipient data including a destination data 21
of the item; 22
determining whether the destination data is 23
in a machine language; 24
translating, when the destination data is not 25
in a machine language, the destination data into 26
machine language destination data; 27
obtaining the unique label identifier and the 28
machine language destination data from the item 29
using a machine capable of reading the machine 30
language during the shipment of the item; 31
Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

3
recording in the computer database tracking 1
data based on the machine language unique label 2
identifier and the machine language data, the 3
tracking data including information regarding a 4
shipping status of the item; and 5
providing the tracking data in response to a 6
request, wherein the tracking data is provided 7
using only the user identifier and the destination 8
data including in the request. 9
10
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 11
appeal is: 12
Wilz US 6,394,354 B1 May 28, 2002 13
Bilibin US 2005/0197892 A1 Sep. 8, 2005 14
Reiter US 7,062,474 B1 Jun. 13, 2006 15
16
The Examiner rejected claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 17
unpatentable over Wilz in view of Reiter and Bilibin. 18
We AFFIRM. 19
20
ISSUE 21
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in finding that the 22
inbound package tracking option of Bilibin corresponds to providing the 23
tracking data in response to a request, the tracking data being provided using 24
only the user identifier and the destination data included in the request, as 25
recited in independent claims 1 and 13? 26
27
FINDINGS OF FACT 28
Specification 29
Appellant invented systems and methods for providing a user with a 30
personalized shipment system (Abstract). 31
Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

4
System 1 provides a user with an easy-to-use Graphical User Interface 1
("GUI"). Sender l0/Recipient 20 does not have to know the tracking number 2
70 of each envelope 40 that is being sent/received; in other words, the 3
tracking number 70 may be “invisible.” By using the Sender's account 4
number 72 or the destination data 76, one may track the movements of the 5
envelope 40. This allows not only the tracking of the movements of the 6
envelope that is sent, e.g., by Sender 10, but also allows Recipient 20 to 7
track movement of the envelopes that are being sent to Recipient 20. Thus, 8
an advance notice to Recipient 20 may be provided that he should be 9
expecting the envelope 40 (Spec. [0032]). 10
11
Bilibin 12
Bilibin discloses computer systems for parcel shipment management 13
([0002]). 14
A User logins into System 1 using a user log in identification and 15
password ([0148]). 16
The System identifies a particular package shipped using the System 17
via a system tracking number that is a unique tracking number generated 18
internally by the System ([0414]). 19
A logged on User can view inbound packages if the User first 20
identifies to the System package tracking numbers for each of the packages 21
the status of which the User is interested in monitoring. The User does this 22
by clicking on the “Add Inbound Package” option 2113, and then inputting 23
identification information, such as the tracking number 19 in the input 24
tracking number field 2035. The user then clicks on the “Add” button 2165, 25
Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

5
and the inputted record is then added to a list for that User of Inbound 1
Packages to be monitored (Figs. 72, 80; [0482]). 2
Once the User has input the identification information for the 3
packages the status of which the User wants to monitor, and added all such 4
records to the User’s Inbound Tracking List, the User can then view the 5
status of those identified inbound packages. To do so, the user clicks on the 6
“View Inbound Packages” option 2112 of the “My Tracking” submenu 2110 7
(Fig. 81; [0483]). 8
9
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 10
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given 11
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and 12
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one 13
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 14
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 15
While the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim 16
term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims. 17
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 18
2005). 19
20
ANALYSIS 21
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by 22
Appellant’s argument that the inbound package tracking option of Bilibin 23
does not correspond to providing the tracking data in response to a request, 24
the tracking data being provided using only the user identifier and the 25
destination data included in the request, as recited in independent claims 1 26
Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

6
and 13 (Appeal Br. 8-11). The Appellant first asserts that Bilibin does not 1
disclose tracking data being provided using only the user identifier and 2
destination data, because Bilibin also requires a password in order to login to 3
the system (Appeal Br. 8). However, once a user is logged into the system, 4
the system utilizes the permissions associated with the user identifier, and 5
not the password, to retrieve data. While the Appellant further asserts that 6
the password is intimately tied to the user account, and thus the tracking 7
data, there is no indication in Bilibin that this is the case once a user has 8
logged into the system (Reply Br. 2-3). 9
The Appellant next asserts that once a user has logged into the system, 10
the user identifier is no longer used by the system, and thus any request for 11
tracking data does not include the user identifier (Appeal Br. 8-9). However, 12
every user-initiated transaction in Bilibin is inherently tied to the user 13
identifier, otherwise the system would be giving the user unfettered access to 14
all the data it possesses, including other users’ data. Accordingly, the user 15
identifier is necessarily present in system transactions, such as the tracking 16
data request. 17
The Appellant additionally asserts that Bilibin utilizes tracking 18
numbers to request tracking data, and not destination data (Appeal Br. 9-10). 19
However, when a user clicks the “View Inbound Packages” option 2112 of 20
the “My Tracking” submenu 2110, the user is, in essence, entering the 21
location where the user receives packages. This location is “destination 22
data” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. 23
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1364. Thus, when combined with the underlying user 24
permissions present in every transaction, Bilibin does disclose tracking data 25
being provided using only the user identifier and destination data. 26
Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

7
The Appellant counter-asserts that the user is required to enter 1
tracking number data prior to clicking “View Inbound Packages,” and thus 2
when clicking “View Inbound Packages,” the system is still using tracking 3
numbers to provide the tracking data (Reply Br. 3-4). As an initial matter, 4
the claim does not recite that a previously entered tracking number cannot be 5
used as the underlying mechanism for providing tracking data where the 6
tracking data request included the user’s current location or “destination 7
data.” See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d at 1231. 8
Furthermore, Appellant’s own Specification notes that the tracking number 9
70 may be “invisible” to the Sender 10/Recipient 20, and does not provide 10
the mechanics on exactly how only the Sender’s account number 72 or 11
destination data 76 is used to provide tracking data. Accordingly, absent any 12
indication as to how only the user identifier and destination data is used to 13
provide tracking data without the use of tracking numbers, the “invisible” 14
use of the previously entered tracking number when the user clicks “View 15
Inbound Packages” in Bilibin is sufficient to meet the aspect of providing 16
tracking data using only the user identifier and the destination data included 17
in the request, as recited in independent claims 1 and 13. 18
19
CONCLUSION 20
The Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting 21
claims 1-24. 22
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 23
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 24
25
AFFIRMED 26
Appeal 2008-004668
Application 10/748,400

8
1
hh 2
3
MOTOROLA, INC. 4
1303 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD 5
IL01/3RD 6
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196 7
8
9