2020000579 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2021)

Roland Fritzsche

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 26, 2021

2020000579 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2021)

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. 13/641,958 10/18/2012 Roland Fritzsche 2009P18816 9691 27350 7590 02/26/2021 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP Box SA P.O. BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER HIBBERT-COPELAND, MARY CATHERINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@patentusa.com office@patentusa.com vrahimis@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROLAND FRITZSCHE Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft of Muenchen, Germany. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to “a picking system for picking packaged items” and “a method for picking packaged items.” Spec., p. 1, ll. 3–4. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 15. A sorting system for sorting packaged items, the sorting system comprising: a removal device configured to remove packaged items made available in a warehouse; a sorting device configured to obtain the removed packaged items from said removal device and to sort the removed packaged items in accordance with a specific picking order; a buffer device configured to obtain the sorted packaged items and to buffer the sorted packaged items, said buffer device having a plurality of collecting conveyors on which the buffered packaged items are collected; a dispensing device configured to withdraw the buffered packaged items from said buffer device in accordance with a sorting order; and a processing unit configured to process the packaged items dispensed from said dispensing device to complete said sorting order; said buffer device and said plurality of collecting conveyors of said buffer device ending in said processing unit. Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wünscher US 6,059,508 May 9, 2000 Schubert US 6,122,895 Sept. 26, 2000 Volkmar2 DE 10 2006 048 345 A1 Apr. 17, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 15, 17–26, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wünscher and Volkmar. Claims 16, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wünscher, Volkmar, and Schubert. OPINION Obviousness— Wünscher and Volkmar The Examiner finds that Wünscher discloses a system comprising most of the features of claim 1, but that Wünscher “fails to teach a single processing unit after the buffer collecting conveyors.” Ans. 4. In pertinent part, the Examiner reads the claimed buffer device on Wünscher’s conveying system 26 comprising collecting conveyors (branchings 29, 30, 31 and conveyor branches 44, 45, 46) and the claimed dispensing device on Wünscher’s transfer sites 32, 33, 34. Id. The Examiner finds that Volkmar teaches feeding products to a single processing unit after buffering the products on three different conveyors after being taken off a packaging module. Id. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to 2 Citations to the text of Volkmar are to the English language translation entered into the electronic record of the present application on April 2, 2018. Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 4 modify Wünscher’s system by having Wünscher’s buffer conveyors (branchings 29, 30, 31 and conveyor branches 44, 45, 46) end “in a single processing unit as taught by Volkmar for efficient packaging using cycled buffers and a single processing station end unit which would yield predictable results in a sorting and picking system. Id. (citing Volkmar Transl., p. 3, ¶ 5; id. at 11, ll. 13–24). The Examiner relies on similar findings and reasoning in addressing independent claim 26. See Ans. 6–7. Appellant argues that Wünscher’s transfer sites 32, 33, 34 “do not perform any sorting” and, thus, “do not withdraw the buffered packaged items from the conveyor system branches” (branchings 29, 30, 31 and conveyor branches 44, 45, 46) “in accordance with a sorting order” as claim 15 recites. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant makes a similar argument for claim 26. Id. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 15 or claim 26. It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Claim 15 does not recite that the dispensing device performs a sorting function. Rather, claim 15 recites “a dispensing device configured to withdraw the buffered packaged items from said buffer device in accordance with a sorting order.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Likewise, claim 26 recites “withdrawing the buffered packaged items from the buffer device in accordance with a specific sorting order,” but does not require that any sorting be performed as part of the withdrawing step. Id. at 13. As the Examiner points out, Wünscher discloses “buffering and sorting items 18 based on . . . computer generated commissioning orders to specific transfer sites which sorts the items from the warehouse to the final Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 5 processing zone.” Ans. 10; see id. at 4 (citing Wünscher 7:32–66 regarding the sorting function). Although the actual sorting takes place upstream of transfer sites 32, 33, 34, Wünscher’s transfer sites 32, 33, 34 receive, and thus withdraw, items in accordance with the sorting order established by the computer generated commissioning orders, thereby satisfying the “dispensing device configured to withdraw. . . in accordance with a sorting order” limitation of claim 15 and the “withdrawing . . . in accordance with a specific sorting order” step of claim 26. Appellant also argues that Volkmar does not teach that its packaging unit 27, on which the Examiner relies for the single processing unit of claim 15 and the processing unit of claim 26 (see Ans. 4, 7), “does any kind of sorting.” Appeal Br. 7; see also id. at 8 (arguing that the Volkmar’s packaging unit does not influence the order of the goods and that Volkmar does not suggest sorting and specifically teaches keeping the given order of the handled items). Much like the argument discussed above, this argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 15 or claim 26, neither of which requires the processing unit to perform any kind of sorting. Further, the Examiner relies on Wünscher, and not Volkmar, for sorting. See Ans. 4, 7. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of independent claims 15 and 26 as unpatentable over Wünscher and Volkmar. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 26 as unpatentable over Wünscher and Volkmar. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 17–25 and 28, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments and which thus fall with claims 15 and 26, as unpatentable over Wünscher and Volkmar. Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 6 Obviousness— Wünscher, Volkmar, and Schubert In contesting the rejection of claims 16, 27, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over Wünscher, Volkmar, and Schubert, Appellant argues only that the additional application of Schubert “would not have made up for the deficiencies in the disclosures of [Wünscher] and Volkmar.” Appeal Br. 10 (relying on the arguments presented against the rejection of claims 15 and 26 as unpatentable over Wünscher and Volkmar). For the reasons discussed above, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 15 and 26 as unpatentable over Wünscher and Volkmar and, likewise, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 16, 27, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over Wünscher, Volkmar, and Schubert. CONCLUSION Both of the Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15, 17–26, 28 103(a) Wünscher, Volkmar 15, 17–26, 28 16, 27, 29, 30 103(a) Wünscher, Volkmar, Schubert 16, 27, 29, 30 Overall Outcome 15–30 Appeal 2020-000579 Application 13/641,958 7 RESPONSE 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