Ex Parte Gatto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 2, 2013

11616072 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN JOSEPH GATTO and TERRY J. NISBET
____________________

Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for validating a product or
other object, wherein a sensor device such as a vertical array of sensors are
used to determine product length. More particularly, the invention pertains
to a method of the above type wherein products are successively scanned,
and then moved through the sensor array by means of a weighing conveyer.
Even more particularly, the invention pertains to a method of the above type
that is useful in regulating or controlling transaction speed in a self-checkout
conveyer system (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for validating a first specified
object placed on a weighing conveyer that has a
conveyer direction and speed of movement,
wherein the conveyer is disposed to move
successive objects to an off-load site adjacent to
the end of the conveyer, a second object
immediately precedes the first specified object in
the object succession, and the first specified object

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
November 11, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 21, 2011).
Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072

3
is placed on the conveyor when the preceding
second object is also on the conveyor, said method
comprising the steps of:
measuring the length of said preceding
second object along said conveyer direction of
movement by moving said preceding second object
with respect to a sensor device that is located
proximate to said conveyer;
selectively processing at least said measured
length of said preceding second object and said
conveyer speed, to compute a time when it has
been determined that said first specified object is
the only object on said conveyor;
acquiring weight data from said weighing
conveyer that is associated with said first specified
object; and
determining the weight of said first specified
object from weight data acquired from said
weighing conveyor at said computed time.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Komori (US 5,990,422, iss. Nov. 23, 1999).
Claims 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Kohashi
(US 5,635,679, iss. Jun. 3, 1997).
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Komori in view of Ramsden (US 6,105,014, iss.
Aug. 15, 2000).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komori in view of Kohashi and further in view of Weir
(US 3,716,697, iss. Feb. 13, 1973).
Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072

4
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komori in view of Ramsden and further in view of
Suehara (US 5,427,224, iss. Jun. 27, 1995).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komori in view of Weir.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 16
Appellants argue claims 1, 10, 11, and 16 as a group (Br. 9-12). We
select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims. The remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Komori does not teach or suggest “selectively
processing at least said measured length of said preceding second object and
said conveyer speed, to compute a time when it has been determined that
said first specified object is the only object on said conveyor,” as recited in
claim 1 (Br. 10-11).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and cites
column 1, lines 55-62 of Komori as teaching that the appropriate time for
measuring the weight of an article A on a weighing apparatus is when the
preceding article A1 has been completely removed from the weighing
conveyer. The Examiner further notes that it is old and well known in the
art to compute time (e.g., the time when article A1 is removed from the
weighing conveyer) based on at least distance (e.g., the measured length of
article A1) and the traveling speed of the conveyer (Ans. 5-6 and 11-12).
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072

5
modify Komori to “include the step of selectively processing at least said
measure length of said preceding second object and said conveyer speed, to
compute a time when it has been determined that said first specified object is
the only object on said conveyor, as taught by Komori et al., in order to
accurately measure the first specified object” (Ans. 6). We agree.
We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Komori fails to disclose or suggest “determining
the weight of said first specified object from weight data acquired from said
weighing conveyor at said computed time” (Br. 11) As described above,
column 1, lines 55-62 of Komori teaches that the appropriate time for
measuring the weight of an article A on a weighing apparatus is when the
preceding article A1 has been completely removed from the weighing
conveyer, which is at the “computed time.” Appellants argue that Komori
teaches using a plurality of weight conveyers and a plurality of weight
signals to calculate weight (Br. 11). However, as the Examiner observes,
Figures 1 and 2 of Komori show known weighing apparatus having a single
weighing conveyer (Ans. 12).
Appellants’ further argument that Komori fails to disclose or suggest
“measuring the length of said preceding second object along said conveyer
direction of movement by moving said preceding second object with respect
to a sensor device that is located proximate to said conveyer” also is
unpersuasive (Br. 11-12). Appellants argue that Komori teaches using two
photo sensors at two different locations along the conveyer while claim 1
recites only one sensor device (Br. 12). Yet claim 1 does not recite “one”
sensor device; instead, claim 1 recites “a” sensor device. The Federal
Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that, as a general rule, when an indefinite
Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072

6
article, such as “a,” is used with a term in an open-ended claim containing
the transitional phrase “comprising,” the article is properly construed to
mean “one or more.” See, e.g., Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface
Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well
settled that the term ‘a’ or ‘an’ ordinarily means ‘one or more.”’); KCJ Corp.
v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Moreover, even if claim 1 were construed, as Appellants propose, to
require only one sensor device as distinguished from the two photo-sensors
disclosed in Komori, in the context of claim 1, that distinction is without any
difference. Komori plainly discloses measuring the length of an object by
moving the object with respect to a sensor device located proximate the
conveyer (Komori, col. 7, ll. 12-30).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10, 11, and 16, which stand or fall with claim 1.
Claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-20
Each of claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-20 depends from one of
independent claims 1, 11, and 16. Appellants did not present any arguments
for the separate patentability of these dependent claims except to assert that
the secondary references relied on in rejecting the claims do not cure the
alleged deficiencies of Komori, and that the dependent claims are, therefore,
allowable based on their dependency on independent claims 1, 11, and 16
(Br. 13-17).
We are not persuaded, for the reasons outlined above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-008438
Application 11/616,072

7
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9, 12-15, and
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED

Klh