Ex parte GAVRILOS

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 1998

08062033 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 17, 1993. According to appellant,1
this application is a continuation of application 07/608,641, filed November
2, 1990.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte EMANUEL N. GAVRILOS
_____________
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,0331
______________
HEARD: October 15, 1998
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claim 17. Claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 21 have been
allowed.
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
2
The claimed invention relates to a computerized apparatus
for tracking documents that are being sorted by an automated
mail sorting machine.
Claim 17 is reproduced as follows:
17. A document surveillance system for tracking a
document traveling along a transport path in a document
sorting system comprising:
a plurality of sensors, positioned in sequence
along the transport path, for detecting an edge
of the document;
optical character reading mechanism, positioned
along the transport path, for reading characters
located on the document;
means, operably coupled to the plurality of
sensors, for determining document status of the
document as it travels along the transport path
wherein the means for determining document
status further comprises means for passing edge
detection information between the plurality of
sensors, said edge detection information
comprising a unique document identifier and a
representation of a position of a transport
mechanism associated with said transport path;
and,
a document labeling mechanism for labeling the
document in response to output from the optical
character reader.
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Cloud et al. (Cloud) 4,503,976 Mar. 12,
1985
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 19, 1995. We will refer to2
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant filed a reply appeal brief
on June 8, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief.
The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed October 15, 1997 that the
reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the
Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Cloud.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claim 17 is anticipated by
the applied reference.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
4
Appellant's claim 17 recites:
means, operably coupled to the plurality of sensors,
for determining document status of the document as
it travels along the transport path wherein the
means for determining document status further
comprises means for passing edge detection
information between the plurality of sensors, said
edge detection information comprising a unique
document identifier and a representation of a
position of a transport mechanism associated with
said transport path. [Emphasis added.]
Appellant argues on pages 3 through 5 of the brief that
Cloud fails to teach the above Appellant's claimed limitations
as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant
argues that Cloud does not disclose a means for determining
document status comprising a means for passing edge detection
information with the edge detection information comprising a
unique document identifier and a representation of a position
of a position of a transport mechanism associated with the
transport path.
The Examiner points out on page 3 of the answer that
Cloud teaches in column 3, lines 34-42, and column 4, lines
15-21, that information is passed and this information
includes a sort code. The Examiner argues that the Cloud sort
code is a unique document identifier in that the sort code is
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
5
obtained from the information read from the document and is a
representation of a position of a transport mechanism
associated with the transport path in that the sort code is
passed only after the document's edge has been detected by the
sensor circuits. The Examiner further argues on page 5 of the
answer that the Appellant's position that this
identifier is to be unique for each document is not supported
by the language of the claim.
On page 2 of the reply brief, Appellant in response
argues that the claim language, "unique document identifier"
requires an identifier that is unique for each document and
not something which is unique in some respects, relates to a
document in other respects and serves some identification
function. Appellant further argues that while the Cloud sort
code may be a unique bin identifier, the sort code is not a
unique document identifier as required by Appellant's claim
17.
Upon a careful review of Cloud, we fail to find that
Cloud teaches
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
6
means for passing edge detection information between
the plurality of sensors, said edge detection
informa-tion comprising a unique document identifier
and a representation of a position of a transport
mechanism associated with said transport path.
as recited in Appellant's claim 17. Upon reviewing the above
claim language, we note that the claim is directed to tracking
a document. Furthermore, the claim language requires the edge
detection information to comprise a unique document
identifier. Therefore, we find that Appellant's claim 17
requires an identi-fier that is unique for each document.
In column 2, lines 51-64, Cloud teaches that Figure 1
teaches a mail sorting machine having a path 10 along which
envelopes that are to be sorted are serially transported.
Cloud further teaches that the envelopes are fed one at a time
between a drive roller 12 and an opposing pinch roller 14
which feed the envelopes onto a conveyor belt 16. In column
2, line 54, through column 3, line 13, Cloud teaches that at
the downstream end of the conveyor belt 16, a plurality of
diverter mechanisms 24, 26 and 28 are positioned in series to
allow the envelopes to divert off into a sort bin.
In column 3, lines 20-42, Cloud teaches that reader 36 is
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
7
positioned to read the zip code of the envelope and send this
information to a computer 38. The computer 38 converts the
read zip code into a coded designation signal. Each
designation signal is a binary code number which addresses one
of the gates (24a, 24b, 26a, 26b, 28a and 28b) of the
diverters (24, 26 and 28). In column 3, lines 43-49, Cloud
teaches that this designation signal is supplied to an
envelope tracking and control system. In column 4, lines 38-
47, Cloud teaches that the envelopes tracking and control
system sends a control signal to a solenoid that causes the
addressed gate to deflect the envelope
in the designation bin corresponding to the envelope's zip
code. Cloud further teaches in column 8, line 30, through
column 10, line 6, the apparatus which routes the envelopes
into the appropriate sorting bin based upon a coincidence
between a incremented signal and a designation signal having a
binary code number which is the address assigned to the gate.
The incremen-ted signal is based upon the envelope passing
each of the photocells pairs 42, 44 and 46.
Thus, Cloud does not assign each envelope a unique
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
8
identifier nor does Cloud pass this unique identifier between
the plurality of sensors. Cloud tracks each envelopes based
upon a sequential detection of light being interrupted by the
photo-cells. Furthermore, Cloud does not pass information
that represents a position of a transport mechanism associated
with the transport path between the plurality of sensors.
Cloud assumes that the document that just passed the first
photocell is the same document that is next detected by the
second photocell. Similarly, Cloud assumes that the document
that just passed the second photocell is the same document
that is next detected by the third photocell. In other words,
Cloud relies on the order of the documents as they are fed
into the path 10 to
identify the document. Because of the reliance of the order
of the document, the Cloud system does not need to uniquely
identify the document or track the position of the transport
mechanism.
Therefore, we find that Cloud fails to teach all of the
limitations of claim 17, and thereby the claim is not
anticipated. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
9
Examiner rejecting claim 17 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
10
Millen, White, Zeland & Branigan
Arlington Courthouse Plaza 1
Suite 1400
2200 Clarendon Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22201