Ex Parte Yoshizumi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2013

10936410 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKAYUKI YOSHIZUMI
____________

Appeal 2011-009307
Application 10/936,410
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009307
Application 10/936,410

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 6-10, 14, and 16-21 which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a transportation
solving device and method (Spec. 1). Claim 10, reproduced below with the
numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

10. A transportation problem solving method comprising:
[1] storing, by a transportation model storage of a
transportation problem solving system, multiple regional
transportation models for solving regional transportation
problems associated with transportation of delivery orders, each
regional transportation
model associated with a corresponding one of multiple regions;
[2] storing, by said transportation model storage, an inter-
depot transportation model for solving inter-depot
transportation problems associated with said transportation of
said delivery orders;
[3] generating, by a transformation section of said
transportation problem solving system, a transformation model
by incorporating said regional transportation models into
portions of said inter-depot transportation model, said
incorporating comprising adding to each depot in said inter-
depot transportation model a regional representative node that
represents a plurality of collection and delivery spots in a
Appeal 2011-009307
Application 10/936,410

3
region associated with said depot and further adding two
intermediate nodes between said depot and said regional
representative node;
[4] computing, by an inter-depot transportation
computing section of said transportation problem solving
system and based on said transformation model, an inter-depot
transportation plan for inter-depot transportation of said
delivery orders and time windows for regional transportation of
said delivery orders, said inter-depot transportation plan further
being computed so that said delivery orders are transported
through said two intermediate nodes in a same order during
both transportation of said delivery orders from said depot to
said regional representative node and-from said regional
representative node to said depot;
[5] computing, by a regional transportation computing
section and based on said regional transportation models and
said time windows, a schedule for collection and delivery of
said delivery orders from and to collection and delivery spots in
said regions; and
[6] outputting, by an output section of said transportation
problem solving system, said inter-depot transportation plan
and said schedule for collection and delivery.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 6-10, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
2. Claims 6-8, 10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cappellini (US 2003/0014286 A1, pub. Jan.
16, 2003) in view of Ye (US 2003/0060924 A1, pub. Mar. 27, 2003).
3. Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cappellini in view of Ye and Borders (US 2001/0047285
A1, pub. Nov. 29, 2001).
Appeal 2011-009307
Application 10/936,410

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are
supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner has determined that the following phrase from claim 10
is unclear:
said inter-depot transportation plan further being computed so
that said delivery orders are transported through said two
intermediate nodes in a same order during both transportation
of said delivery orders from said depot to said regional
representative node and-from said regional representative node
to said depot.
The Examiner has determined that it is unclear if orders are delivered to the
delivery spots in the regional node and if the orders are returned to a
different depot from the ones that came from there (Ans. 3).
In contrast, the Appellants argue that the rejection of 10 is improper
(App. Br. 19-23).
We agree with the Appellants’ arguments made at pages 20-23 of the
Appeal Brief. Here, claim breadth is not indefiniteness, and it is clear what
is being claimed in the cited phrase. The remaining claims have been
rejected on similar grounds and the rejection of these claims is not sustained
as well.

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-009307
Application 10/936,410

5

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 10 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose claim limitation [3] (App. Br. 23-24,
29-31). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record
is proper (Ans. 4-5).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, claim limitation [3] requires:
[3] generating, by a transformation section of said
transportation problem solving system, a transformation model
by incorporating said regional transportation models into
portions of said inter-depot transportation model, said
incorporating comprising adding to each depot in said inter-
depot transportation model a regional representative node that
represents a plurality of collection and delivery spots in a
region associated with said depot and further adding two
intermediate nodes between said depot and said regional
representative node. (Claim 10, emphasis added).
The claim thus in part requires “said incorporating comprising adding
to each depot … a regional representative node that represents a plurality of
collection and delivery spots in a region … and further adding two
intermediate nodes between said depot and said regional representative
node” and the Examiner has determined that this is found in Cappellini at
paragraphs [0128], [0134]-[0151], [0285]-[0288], [0303]-[0310], and
Figures 2A and 5B (Ans. 4-5). We have reviewed these cited portions of
Cappellini and fail to see this cited claim limitation. While Cappellini at
paragraph [0128] does disclose generally operational areas for pickup and
delivery of a load, it is not specifically disclosed that for each depot in the
model there is a regional representative node that represents a plurality of
collection and delivery spots in a region associated with said depot or
Appeal 2011-009307
Application 10/936,410

6
adding the two intermediate nodes as claimed between the depot and
representative node. Cappellini at paragraphs [0290], [0294], [0387]-[0391],
and Figure 2B fails to disclose this as well.
As Cappellini fails to disclose the above cited claim limitations the
rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims is not sustained. The
remaining claims contain similar limitations to those addressed above and
the rejection of these claims is not sustained as well.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-10, 14, and 16-21 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls