Ex Parte Shakes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

11077430 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN J. SHAKES and FRANÇOIS M. ROUAIX
____________

Appeal 2012-000228
Application 11/077,430
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jonathan J. Shakes and François M. Rouaix (“Appellants”) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bastian (US 6,650,225 B2, iss.
Nov. 18, 2003) and rejecting claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bastian. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-000228
Application 11/077,430

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 15 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
15. A computer-accessible storage medium, comprising
program instructions, wherein the program instructions are
computer-executable to implement:
providing a list of items to be picked in a materials
handling facility to an agent of the materials handling facility,
wherein the list of items includes items for two or more
destinations in the materials handling facility;
assigning a receptacle to each of the two or more
destinations for the items on the list of items, wherein each
receptacle has a mote comprising a communications interface
and is coupled to an indicator;
directing the agent in picking the items on the list of
items from one or more locations in the materials handling
facility into the two or more receptacles, wherein said directing
comprises, for each item picked:
receiving information identifying the picked item
from a communications device, wherein the information
identifying the picked item is read from the picked item
into the communications device and sent by the
communications device;
determining a particular one of the two or more
receptacles as a destination receptacle for the picked item
in accordance with the information identifying the picked
item received from the communications device; and
sending a message to the mote on the destination
receptacle for the item to activate the indicator coupled to
the mote to indicate to the agent that the picked item is to
be placed into the destination receptacle.
See App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Appeal 2012-000228
Application 11/077,430

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 as
anticipated by Bastian because Bastian fails to disclose each and every
limitation of the claim. See App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2-5. The first two
steps of claim 15 require “providing” a list of items to be picked for delivery
to two or more destinations, and “assigning a receptacle to each of the two or
more destinations.” The Examiner found the claimed receptacles correspond
to either the pick-to containers 30 or the pick-from parts bins 40 in Bastian.
See Ans. 3 (citing Bastian, Figure 1). Appellants contend that neither
Bastian’s pick-to containers 30 nor Bastian’s pick-from parts bins 40 satisfy
all the requirements in claim 15 describing the receptacles. We agree with
Appellants, for the following reasons.
Claim 15 specifies three steps to be executed by a computer in
directing an agent to place a picked item into a particular receptacle:
(i) “receiving” information identifying the picked item which is read from
the picked item into a communications device, (ii) “determining” a particular
receptacle as a destination receptacle for the picked item in accordance with
the received information, and (iii) “sending” a message to a mote on the
determined destination receptacle to identify that receptacle as the one into
which the agent should place the picked item. Each step depends on the
previous step. That is, step (ii) requires using the information received in
step (i), and step (iii) relies on the receptacle determined in step (ii).
The Examiner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Bastian discloses the combination of steps (i) to (iii) with
respect to the pick-to containers 30. We agree with the Examiner that
Bastian performs step (iii). That is, Bastian discloses sending a message
Appeal 2012-000228
Application 11/077,430

4
from a central computer 20 to a mote 31 on a pick-to container 30 to activate
an indicator 33 or 35C coupled to the mote 31 to indicate to the agent that a
picked item is to be placed into the pick-to container 30. See Ans. 3 (citing
Bastian, col. 3, ll. 15-25); see also Bastian, col. 5, ll. 43-67 and col. 6, ll. 13-
28. According to the Examiner, Bastian also discloses step (i) at column 3,
lines 40-67 and at column 13, lines 50-60. See Ans. 3 and 4-5. However,
that combined disclosure at most establishes that the central computer 20
and the mote 31 can communicate wirelessly. It fails to disclose the central
computer 20 receiving information which is read from the picked item to
identify the picked item, as required by step (i). Also according to the
Examiner, Bastian discloses step (ii) at column 15, lines 31-53 and at
column 14, lines 44-52. See Ans. 3 and 5. However, that combined
disclosure establishes at most that the central computer 20 determines the
destination receptacle 30 before the item is picked by the agent, not “in
accordance with” information read from the picked item as step (ii) requires.
The Examiner has also failed to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Bastian discloses the combination of steps (i) to (iii) with
respect to the pick-from containers 40. First, as a matter of claim
construction, the receptacles of claim 15 correspond to a “destination” for a
picked item. In the order-fulfillment process of Bastian, items are removed
from the pick-from parts bins 40 and placed into pick-to containers 30 for
transportation to a “destination” location. Thus, in that order-fulfillment
process, the pick-from parts bins 40 cannot correspond to the “destination”
receptacle recited in claim 15. Rather, in the order-fulfillment process, the
parts bins 40 are the direct opposite of destination receptacles and are more
appropriately designated “origin” receptacles (for example).
Appeal 2012-000228
Application 11/077,430

5
Nonetheless, the items which are located in the parts bins 40 must be
loaded into those parts bins 40 at some time prior to the order-fulfillment
process of Bastian proceeding. The parts bins 40, during that loading
process, each correspond to a “destination” receptacle as recited in claim 15.
According to the Bastian disclosure, a particular parts bin 40 is determined
as a destination receptacle for picked items based on the SKU number of the
items. See Ans. 5 (citing Bastian, col. 13, ll. 50-60); see also Bastian, col. 6,
ll. 14-16. The parts bins 40 each have a mote 41 having a light indicator 43
or a display 45C. See Bastian col. 7, ll. 29-57. According to the Examiner,
Bastian discloses step (iii) at column 3, lines 15-25 and column 14, lines 44-
52. See Ans. 3 and 5. However, that combined disclosure establishes at
most that the light 43 or display 45C is used to indicate an item is to be
removed from an indicated container 40 during the order-fulfillment process
of Bastian. It fails to disclose the central computer 20 sends a message to
the mote 41 on the determined container 40 to identify container 40 as the
one into which the agent should insert a picked item, as step (iii) requires.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the Examiner erred in finding
either the pick-to containers 30 or the pick-from parts bins 40 of Bastian
may correspond to the “receptacle” recited in claim 15. We therefore do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15 as anticipated by
Bastian. Since the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16-18 relies
on the same erroneous findings as discussed supra and the Examiner does
not modify Bastian in any way that would remedy those erroneous findings,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 16-18
as unpatentable over Bastian.
Appeal 2012-000228
Application 11/077,430

6
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Bastian and
the rejection of claims 16-18 as unpatentable over Bastian.

REVERSED

mls