Ex Parte Gatto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2017

11616072 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2017)

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.
11/616,072 12/26/2006 John Joseph Gatto RPS920060119US1 1948
38424 7590 04/12/2017
DTTKFW YFF EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CHAMPAGNE, LUNA
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN JOSEPH GATTO and TERRY J. NISBET
Appeal 2015-0021571
Application 11/616,0722
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
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).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
July 1, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 17, 2014), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 17, 2014) and Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 3, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings
Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002157
Application 11/616,072
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “generally pertains 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,” and, more
particularly, “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,” and, even more particularly, “to a method of the
above type that is useful in regulating or controlling transaction speed in a
self-checkout conveyer system” (Spec. 11).
Claims 1,11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for validating a first specified object
placed on one 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 a farther
end of the conveyer, said method comprising the steps of:
scanning each object to identify reference data associated
with a respective object scanned, wherein a second object
immediately precedes the first specified object in the object
succession, and the first specified object is placed on the
conveyor when the preceding second object is also on the
conveyor;
measuring a length and a vertical height of said preceding
second object along said conveyer direction of movement by
moving said preceding second object with respect to a single
sensor device that is located proximate to said conveyer, wherein
said single sensor device forms a gate comprising vertical
opposing arrays through which an object conveyed must pass,
and wherein said single sensor device is spaced a predetermined
distance from said farther end of the conveyor;
2
Appeal 2015-002157
Application 11/616,072
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 preceding second
object is transferred from said conveyer to said off-load site;
acquiring first weight data provided by said weighing
conveyer, representing a total weight on said weighing conveyer
just before said computed time when there are other objects on
said weighing conveyer simultaneously with said second
specified object, and second weight data representing a total
weight on said weighing conveyer just after said computed time
when there are other objects on said weighing conveyer
simultaneously without said second specified object, wherein a
difference between the first weight data and the second weight
data is the weight of said second specified object;
determining whether the weight of said second specified
object matches corresponding reference data associated with the
respective object; and
responsive to a determination the weight of said second
specified object matches corresponding reference data associated
with the respective object, validating said second specified
object.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komori et al. (US 5,990,422, iss. Nov. 23, 1999,
hereinafter “Komori”), Sellers (US 3,945,448, iss. Mar. 23, 1976), and
Ikeda et al. (US 5,375,680, iss. Dec. 27, 1994) (hereinafter “Ikeda”).
Claims 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komori, Sellers, Ikeda, and Criscione II et al.
(US 2005/0072603 Al, pub. Apr. 7, 2005) (hereinafter “Criscione”).
Claims 3, 4, 9, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komori, Sellers, Ikeda, Criscione, and Kohashi et al.
(US 5,635,679, iss. June 3, 1997) (hereinafter “Kohashi”).
3
Appeal 2015-002157
Application 11/616,072
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komori, Sellers, Ikeda, and Ramsden et al.
(US 6,105,014, iss. Aug. 15, 2000) (hereinafter “Ramsden”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Komori, Sellers, Ikeda, Kohashi, and Weir (US 3,716,697, iss. Feb. 13,
1973).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Komori, Sellers, Ikeda, Ramsden, and Suehara et al. (US 5,427,224,
iss. June 27, 1995) (hereinafter “Suehara”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Komori, Sellers, Ikeda, and Weir.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claiml
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Komori and Ikeda, on which the Examiner relies, fails to
disclose or suggest
measuring a length and a vertical height of said preceding
second object along said conveyer direction of movement by
moving said preceding second object with respect to a single
sensor device that is located proximate to said conveyer,
wherein said single sensor device forms a gate comprising
vertical opposing arrays through which an object conveyed
must pass, and wherein said single sensor device is spaced a
predetermined distance from said farther end of the conveyor[,]
as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 22—24).
Komori is directed to an apparatus for measuring weights of articles
successively transported on a conveyer, including first and second weighing
4
Appeal 2015-002157
Application 11/616,072
conveyers 13 and 14 having load cells 23 and 24 to produce weight signals,
and photo-sensors 20,21, and 22 arranged at inlets and outlets of the
weighing conveyors for detecting passage of the articles to produce article
detection signals (Komori, Abstract). Komori discloses that the length of an
article is measured by counting output pulses from a rotary encoder 15 to
determine the difference between the length of the article, “L,” and a
reference length, “LI” (by which photo-sensors 20 and 21 are separated
from each other); the length L of the article is then calculated as the sum of
the reference length and the difference (Komori, Abstract; see also id.
at col. 7,1. 36 — col. 8,1. 23).
Ikeda is directed to a check-out device installed, for example, as a
self-service check-out counter at a supermarket (Ikeda, col. 4,11. 7—8), and
discloses, with reference to Figure 1, that the device comprises, inter alia, an
input section 10 and an entry section 20 {id., col. 4,11. 11—13). Input
section 10 contains a stationary sensor 11 for optically scanning an article,
which a customer wishes to purchase, to read an article code recorded on the
object generally in a bar-code form {id., col. 4,11. 16—20). Entry section 20
contains an entry conveyor 21 for transporting a scanned article; an
electronic weighing device 22 for weighing the article; and an article
sensor 23 for optically sensing the passage of the article through an exit of
entry conveyor 21 {id., col. 4,11. 34-41). Electronic weighing device 22
measures the weight of the article, and supplies the measured weight to an
electronic cash register, which uses the article code and measured weight
data to confirm that the article whose article code was read by the scanner is,
in fact, the article on the entry conveyor {id., col. 3,11. 5—21).
5
Appeal 2015-002157
Application 11/616,072
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner cites
Komori as disclosing the measurement of a length and a vertical height of a
moving article (Final Act. 2—3 (citing Komori, col. 3,11. 13—16; col. 7,
11. 12—30)). However, the Examiner ostensibly acknowledges that neither
Komori nor Sellers explicitly discloses that the measurement is
accomplished “by moving said preceding second object with respect to a
single sensor device that is located proximate to said conveyer” or that “said
single sensor device forms a gate comprising vertical opposing arrays
through which an object conveyed must pass, and wherein said single sensor
device is spaced a predetermined distance from said farther end of the
conveyor,” as called for in claim 1.
The Examiner cites Ikeda to cure the deficiency of Komori (id. at 4
(citing Ikeda, col. 4,11. 44—51)). But the Examiner does not adequately
explain why, and we fail to see why, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had an apparent reason to modify Komori, which discloses
measuring length using a rotary encoder in combination with a reference
length by which two photo-sensors are separated, to include a single sensor,
as disclosed in Ikeda, which only optically senses the passage of the article
through an exit of the entry conveyor 21 so that another article can be
processed, and fails to measure a length and a vertical height of an object
along the conveyor direction of movement, as called for in claim l.3
3 Ikeda discloses that “the processing unit inhibits a next article code from
being input at least during a period from when the article code has been
input until the article put on the conveyor section is removed” (Ikeda, col. 3,
11. 25—29). In this way, Ikeda avoids two or more articles being placed on
the conveyor section and weighted simultaneously (id., col. 3,11. 30-33).
6
Appeal 2015-002157
Application 11/616,072
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claims 11 and 16
Independent claims 11 and 16 include language substantially similar
to the language of independent claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same
rationale applied with respect to claim 1 (Final Act. 2—5). Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2—10, 12—15, and 17—20
Each of claims 2—10, 12—15, and 17—20 depends, directly or
indirectly, from one of independent claims 1,11, and 16. The Examiner’s
rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 16. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—10, 12—15, and 17—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S. C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
7