Ex Parte Fairweather et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

11787041 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES A. FAIRWEATHER, GARY S. JACOBSON,
ROBERT J. ALLEN, GEORGE J. DOUTNEY, and
MICHAEL J. LORELLO
____________________

Appeal 2010-002776
Application 11/787,041
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002776
Application 11/787,041
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James A. Fairweather et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16, and 17.
The Examiner withdrew claims 9 and 15 from consideration. No other
claims are pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for sensing insert insertion approximately at a
crease line of an envelope, comprising the steps of:
a) positioning a sensor emitter sensor receiver pair
approximately at the crease line of the envelope;
b) modifying the sensor operating parameters so that a
body of the envelope causes a state transition of the sensor by
the sensor;
c) modifying the sensor operating parameters so that the
body of the envelope is no longer sensed;
d) transporting the insert past the sensor into the
envelope; and
e) monitoring the response of the sensor to detect the
presence and absence of the insert in the envelope as the insert
is inserted into the envelope.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Noll US 4,843,802 Jul. 4, 1989
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Noll.
Appeal 2010-002776
Application 11/787,041
3
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Noll.
OPINION
Appellants’ method uses a single sensor receiver 12 and sensor
emitter 11 pair for sensing both the presence of an envelope and the presence
of an insert inserted within the envelope. See figures 1-4, 6-9; Spec., pp. 6-
7, paras. [0027]-[0030]; pp. 9-10, paras. [0040]-[0043]. In order to have a
single sensor receiver/emitter pair perform both sensing functions,
Appellants’ method modifies the sensor operating parameters (i.e., switches
the level of electric current supplied to the sensor emitter 11 between current
R when sensing the presence of an envelope and increased current S when
sensing the presence of an insert within the envelope). Fig. 5; Spec., pp. 6-7,
paras. [0027]-[0030]; pp. 9-10, paras. [0040]-[0043].
As pointed out by Appellants (Br. 14), Noll does not use a single
sensor receiver/emitter pair for sensing both the presence of an envelope and
the presence of an insert inserted within the envelope. In a first
embodiment, Noll uses a first sensor receiver/emitter pair (sensor 201 and
light source 200) to indicate proper alignment of the envelope 72, and a
second receiver/emitter pair (second sensor 203 and second light source 202)
to sense the presence of inserts in the envelope 72. Col. 10, ll. 37-44; fig. 1.
The second light source 202 has sufficient intensity to shine through the
empty envelope 72 and be received by the second sensor 203, but the
presence of inserts in the envelope will block the light from the second
source 202. Col. 10, ll. 40-44. In an alternative embodiment, Noll uses one
sensor (photocell sensor 301) for sensing the presence of an envelope and a
second sensor, in the form of a receiver/emitter pair (light sensor 302 and
light source 303), for sensing the presence of an insert within the envelope.
Appeal 2010-002776
Application 11/787,041
4
Col. 14, ll. 22-39; fig. 10. “The sensitivity of the sensor 302 and the power
of the source 303 are such that light from the source 303 can be sensed by
the sensor 302 when the envelope 272 is empty. However, the light will be
blocked when a sheet 214a or 214b is in the envelope 272.” Col. 14, ll. 34-
39.
Because Noll uses two separate sensors, or sensor receiver/emitter
pairs, for performing the two sensing functions, Noll does not, and need not,
modify the sensor operating parameters as called for in steps b) and c) of
claim 1. Thus, Noll does not anticipate the subject matter of claim 1. We do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11-14,
and 16.
In rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Noll, the Examiner does not articulate any reason why it might have been
obvious to modify Noll to overcome the deficiency noted above. Thus, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16, and 17
is reversed.
REVERSED

hh