Ex Parte MilesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 23, 201311906423 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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. 11/906,423 10/01/2007 Gregory W. Miles MILES 0100 7953 7590 07/23/2013 Wendy W. Koba, Esq. P.O. Box 556 Springtown, PA 18081 EXAMINER LOWE, MICHAEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3652 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/23/2013 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 GREGORY W. MILES ____________ Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, RICHARD E. RICE and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. RICE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Gregory W. Miles (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-10. App. Br. 2. Claim 3 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to an automated arrangement for loading filled water bottles into a shipping rack and, more particularly, to an automated arrangement that is processor-controlled to fill different types of racks without requiring a physical change in the loader system.” Spec. para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim: 1. An automated system for loading bottles into a shipping rack structure having a depth of at least two bottles in each compartment in the shipping rack structure, the system comprising: an elevator for accepting horizontally- oriented bottles and raising a plurality of bottles into a column configuration, forming a column of single bottles in aligned position with a plurality of compartments of the shipping rack structure, the elevator comprising a plurality of seats disposed along a conveyor, each seat for accommodating a single bottle as it loads into place, the plurality of seats disposed to align with a plurality of compartments along a column of a loading rack structure; a pusher element for moving the column of single bottles off of the elevator seats and into the Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 3 associated compartments of said shipping rack structure; and a process control unit for using as input data a set of parameters associated with the arrangement of compartments within said shipping rack structure, the set of parameters including a number of columns in the shipping rack structure, a number of rows in each column and a depth of each row where the depth of each row is defined as the total number of bottles stored in a compartment, said process control unit coupled to the elevator and the pusher element to activate/deactivate each component in sequence to provide for the automated movement of the elevator to raise the proper number of bottles into place required to fill a column of the shipping rack structure, followed by the automated movement of the pusher element to transfer to the column of single bottles into the shipping rack structure, the depth of movement of the pusher element controlled by how deep into the compartments the current column of single bottles is to be placed. App. Br., Claims App’x. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Simmons US 5,895,195 Apr. 20, 1999 Tye US 7,229,110 Bl Jun. 12, 2007 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons. Claim 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons and Tye. Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 4 ANALYSIS Claim 1 calls for: (1) “[a]n automated system for loading bottles into a shipping rack structure having a depth of at least two bottles in each compartment in the shipping rack structure,” (2) “an elevator for accepting horizontally-oriented bottles and raising a plurality of bottles into a column configuration, forming a column of single bottles in aligned position with a plurality of compartments of the shipping rack structure, the elevator comprising a plurality of seats disposed along a conveyor, each seat for accommodating a single bottle as it loads into place,” (3) a pusher element for moving the column of single bottles off of the elevator seats and (4) a control unit coupled to the pusher element to control the depth of movement of the pusher element according to “how deep into the compartments the current column of single bottles is to be placed.” (Emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Simmons teaches a rack loader/unloader system comprising: an elevator with a plurality of seats for accepting and raising a plurality of single horizontally-oriented bottles into a column, in aligned position with a plurality of compartments of the shipping rack structure, having a depth of at least two bottles; a pusher element for moving the column of bottles off of the elevator and into the associated compartments of the shipping rack structure; and a process control unit. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to have tried modifying Simmons to have any sized/shaped adjustable depth and rack configuration (including movement, etc.) and control in order to increase versatility and achieve Simmons stated desire to work with any type bottle, rack and control system.” Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that Simmons is “capable of using a single column of bottles (see column 3, lines Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 5 50, 51; column 4, lines 43-45) and can be used with a single column, multiple columns, or any configuration desired.” Ans. 8. However, we agree with Appellant’s argument that “[t]he present invention is configured to always load only a single column of bottles, regardless of the depth of the rack structure” and that “[t]his is in clear distinction to the arrangement of Simmons et al., where a pusher is used to move ‘each row of full bottles accumulated in the elevator.’” App. Br. 4 (quoting Simmons, col. 6, l. 12). As Appellant points out, “each elevator ‘seat’ in Simmons et al. needs to be sized to accommodate a full ‘row’ of bottles (shown as two bottles in the drawings of Simmons et al.),” while in contrast “[t]he elevator structure of the present invention, as defined by independent claim 1, includes a plurality of ‘seats,’ where each seat accommodates only a single bottle (regardless of the depth of the rack structure).” Id. We note that the language recited in the preamble of claim 1 “a shipping rack structure having a depth of at least two bottles in each compartment in the shipping rack structure” is a claim limitation, because the preamble language is necessary to give meaning to the claim and to properly define the claimed subject matter, specifically, the terms “the shipping rack structure” and “said shipping rack structure” used in the body of the claim.1 We cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that Simmons’s system (elevator, pusher and controller), when used with a shipping rack structure having a compartment depth of at least two bottles, as claimed, is 1 See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 6 capable of moving a column of single bottles. The Examiner relies on Simmons’s disclosure that “[t]he controller 100 can include a programmable controller or any other suitable automated control system” (col. 3, ll. 50-51) and that “[t]he operation of the system 10 can be controlled by the control arrangement 100 to unload and load various sizes and configurations of racks, such as the rack 14” (col. 4, ll. 43-45). See Ans. 8. However, this disclosure is silent as to moving a column of single bottles. Simmons teaches moving a column of two (or more) bottles (depending on the number of bottles contained in a horizontal compartment of the shipping rack) into the elevator at one time.2 Col. 3, ll. 57-61, figs. 3 and 4. When the elevator raises a seat into proper position for off-loading, the pusher/controller of Simmons functions to move out all of the bottles in that seat of the elevator. Col. 6, ll. 4-7, fig. 4. Further, the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious “to have tried modifying Simmons to have any sized/shaped adjustable depth and rack configuration (including movement, etc.) and control” does not adequately explain why the person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system to move a column of single bottles, as claimed. Accordingly, the Examiner has not provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 2 Simmons’s shipping rack structure 14 has multiple columns and rows, each row comprising a compartment of two, horizontally-aligned water bottles. Col. 3, ll. 3-4, figs. 1 and 2. Appeal 2011-006946 Application 11/906,423 7 We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4-6 and 10 dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons. Claims 7-9 depend from claim 1. As the Examiner does not rely on Tye to remedy the deficiencies in Simmons with respect to claim 1 (see Ans. 7-8), we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons and Tye. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 4-10. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation