Ex Parte ZimmermannDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201312329262 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 12/329,262 12/05/2008 Armin Zimmermann 2006P08994 8446 24131 7590 09/26/2013 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ARMIN ZIMMERMANN ____________________ Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Armin Zimmermann (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nagasawa (US 5,277,321, iss. Jan. 11, 1994). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are the only independent claims. 1. A sorting system for flat items of mail, comprising: a number N1 > 2 of parallel-connected groups of storage modules for simultaneously storing a multiplicity of items of mail; a number N2 > 1 of parallel mail feeders each disposed to feed to a plurality of said groups of storage modules; and a number N3 > 2 of parallel mail dischargers each disposed to discharge from a plurality of said groups of storage modules; a process controller configured to control a joint storing of items of mail from a stream of mail into storage modules belonging to at least one group of storage modules, and to simultaneously control discharging of jointly deposited items of mail from storage modules of at least one other group of storage modules. 14. A method of sorting flat items of mail, which comprises the following method steps: guiding the items of mail via N2 > 1 parallel mail feeders to N1 > 2 parallel-connected groups of storage modules for simultaneously storing or buffering a multiplicity of the items of mail; guiding the items of mail from the storage modules into N3 > 2 parallel mail dischargers; and Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 3 thereby jointly storing items of mail from a stream of mail in storage modules belonging to at least one group and concurrently discharging items of mail from storage modules of at least one other group. OPINION Appellant’s arguments alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14 as anticipated by Nagasawa are set forth on pages 8-17 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 4-13 of the Reply Brief. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the responses to those arguments on pages 6-8 of the Answer. Thus, those arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claims 1-13 Appellant argues that each of Nagasawa’s groups (regulating box groups 8a, 8b, 8c) is served by only one of the parallel mail feeders (i.e., sorting gates 7a, 7b, 7c and sub-transfer passages 5a-5n). Reply Br. 9. This argument is not convincing, because claim 1 does not require that any of the claimed groups be served by more than one parallel mail feeder. In fact, claim 1 does not even require more than one feeder. The limitation “a number N2 > 1 of parallel mail feeders” may be met by one feeder. Appellant also argues that each of Nagasawa’s “‘parallel mail feeders’ only feeds to one of the storage modules (8).” Reply Br. 5. This argument also is not convincing, because, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 6), the modules (regulating boxes 23a-23n) comprise sub-groups of modules, such as regulating boxes 23a-23c as a first sub-group, boxes 23d-23g as a second sub-group, etc., in group 8a; regulating boxes 23a-23c as a first sub-group, boxes 23d-23g, as a second sub-group, etc., in group 8b, and so on. The Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 4 Examiner considers each of these sub-groups to be a “group” of storage modules as recited in claim 1. Each of Nagasawa’s parallel mail feeders (i.e., sorting gates 7a-7n and sub-transfer passages 5a-5n) is disposed to feed to all of the sub-groups of the regulating box group 8a-8n with which the feeder is associated. Nagasawa, fig. 1. Thus, each of Nagasawa’s feeders is disposed to feed to a plurality of groups of storage modules. Appellant argues that each of Nagasawa’s dischargers (exit transfer passages 25a-25n) is disposed to discharge items from one and only one group of storage modules. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 6. This argument is not accurate, because each of Nagasawa’s exit transfer passages is disposed to discharge items from all of the sub-groups of the regulating box group 8a-8n with which it is associated. Thus, each of Nagasawa’s dischargers is disposed to discharge items from a plurality of groups of storage modules. Appellant argues that Nagasawa’s figure 1 does not show two or more exit transfer passages connected to any of the groups (regulating box groups 8a-8n). App. Br. 9-10. According to Appellant, each group of storage modules is served by only one of the dischargers. Reply Br. 6. This argument does not show error in the rejection, because claim 1 does not require two or more dischargers disposed to discharge from any one group of storage modules. Rather, claim 1 calls for at least two parallel dischargers each disposed to discharge from a plurality of the groups of modules. Appellant additionally argues that Nagasawa discloses that the control circuit 50 only initiates discharging from the groups 8a-8n after the storing has been completed. App. Br. 13 (citing Nagasawa, col. 7, ll. 12-21); Reply Br. 10. Thus, according to Appellant, Nagasawa does not disclose operation Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 5 of the storage modules such that items are stored in a first group and items are discharged from a second group at the same time. App. Br. 13. The Examiner construes claim 1 as requiring simultaneously controlling discharging items from storage modules of at least one other group, and not simultaneously storing and discharging, as argued by Appellant. Ans. 7. Thus, according to the Examiner, Nagasawa’s disclosure of simultaneously controlling the discharge of items from multiple storage modules would anticipate this limitation. Id.; see, e.g., Nagasawa, col. 7, ll. 39-47 (disclosing concurrent discharge of items from boxes 23a, 23c, and 23d at the same time). We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s construction of claim 1 is illogical. See Reply Br. 11-12. While the recited “control discharging” function that follows “simultaneously” does not require controlling discharge of items from modules of two different groups, that function does require controlling discharge of items from “storage modules,” that is, from plural storage modules. As such, the notion of doing so simultaneously from said plurality of modules is logical. Appellant reminds us that “claim language must be considered in view of the specification.” Reply Br. 12. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 6 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). The challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the fact that Appellant’s Specification may disclose “feeding and storing mail items in a first group of storage modules while (simultaneously) discharging mail items from another group of storage modules” does not justify reading such a limitation into claim 1 when the claim language is broader than the disclosed embodiment. See Reply Br. 12; Spec., para. [0030]. For the above reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of dependent claims 2-13, which Appellant groups with claim 1, as being anticipated by Nagasawa. See App. Br. 14. Claim 14 Appellant argues that Nagasawa’s control circuit only initiates discharging from groups after storing has been completed. App. Br. 15. Thus, according to Appellant, Nagasawa does not disclose storing mail items in a first group and discharging items from a second group at the same time, and thus does not satisfy the claim 14 limitation “jointly storing items of mail from a stream of mail in storage modules belonging to at least one Appeal 2011-011938 Application 12/329,262 7 group and concurrently discharging items of mail from storage modules of at least one other group.” Id. The Examiner construes the term “concurrently” in claim 14 as modifying only the “discharging items of mail from storage modules” limitation, and thus reads this language “as merely requiring that the discharge from different storage modules—just as presently taught by Nagasawa—occur concurrently.” Ans. 8. For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, the Examiner’s construction is reasonable. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We sustain the rejection of claim 14 and of dependent claim 15, which Appellant groups with claim 14, as being anticipated by Nagasawa. See App. Br. 17. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation