Ex Parte Lakshman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

11094505 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111094,505 0313012005 Girish S. Lakshman
35690 7590 06/28/2016
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5924-01400 1395
EXAMINER
GILKEY, CARRIE STRODER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIRISH S. LAKSHMAN,
LLEWELLYN W. BEZANSON, and
PRADEEP DESAI
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Girish D. Lakshman et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 3 5
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-53. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellants identify Amazon Technologies, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
performing by one or more computers, each comprising at least
a processor and a memory:
collecting empirical transit data for a plurality of previously-
shipped shipments of material;
from said empirical transit data, determining respective transit
characteristics from a source location to a plurality of destination
locations, wherein each of said respective transit characteristics
indicates an empirically-observed aspect of a transit of material
between said source location and a corresponding one of said
destination locations;
grouping said plurality of destination locations according
to a similarity criterion into a plurality of subsets corresponding
to respective geographical regions, wherein respective transit
characteristics of destination locations grouped into a given
respective geographical region each satisfy said similarity
criterion, and wherein each of the geographical regions is
geographically defined by a respective set of dimensions, such
that said grouping of destination locations into subsets occurs
dependent upon the empirical transit data;
determining a respective distribution associated with
each of said geographical regions, wherein a given respective
distribution correlates a given transit characteristic from said
source location to a given geographical region with a respective
surety factor, wherein said respective surety factor includes a
cumulative probability that said given transit characteristic will
be achieved; and
dynamically updating said respective transit
characteristics, said grouping of destination locations into
geographical regions and said respective distributions
dependent upon collecting empirical transit data;
2
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
wherein dynamically updating said respective transit
characteristics comprises collecting additional empirical transit data
for one or more previously shipped shipments of material subsequent
to said determining said respective transit characteristics, and, based
on said additional empirical transit data, updating one or more of said
respective transit characteristics to indicate an additional empirically-
observed aspect of a transit of material between said source location
and a corresponding one of said destination locations;
wherein for at least a given one of the geographical regions,
dynamically updating a grouping of destination locations into said
given geographical region comprises, in response to updating said
respective transit characteristics to reflect additional empirical transit
data that is different from previous empirical transit data, regrouping
at least some of said destination locations dependent upon said
additional empirical transit data and, based on said additional
empirical transit data, changing the respective set of dimensions that
geographically define the given geographical region.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Asthana
Gaspard, II
Bellesfield
Dutta
Petersen
Laurent
us 5,265,006
US 6,240,362 Bl
us 6,282,489
US 2003/0036938 Al
US 2003/0195934 Al
US 2004/0249742 Al
Nov. 23, 1993
May 29, 2001
Aug. 28, 2001
Feb.20,2003
Oct. 16, 2003
Dec. 9, 2004
Ho and Zheng, "Setting Customer Expectation in Service Delivery:
An Integrated Marketing-Operations Perspective," 01 June 2003. [Ho]
Orwant, Hietaniemi, and Macdonald, "Mastering Algorithms with
Perl," 18 August 1999. [Orwant]
3
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
"Examiner takes Official Notice that selecting a predicting a transit
characteristic, namely time till delivery, without completely
specifying a delivery address is well known at the time of invention to
persons of ordinary skill in the art. For example, when going to the
Post Office, the post office personnel asks for the zip code where the
package will be shipped, enters it into the computer, and is then able
to tell the customer how long before the package arrives at its
destination, using only the zip code." Non-Final Act. 51.
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as
the invention.
2. Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 24--26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana,
and Gaspard, II.
3. Claims 2-5 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and Ho.
4. Claims 6, 7, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Ho, and Orwant.
5. Claims 11, 27, 33, 34 and 41--44 are rejected under 35U.S.C.§103(a)
as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and
Peterson.
6. Claims 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and Bellesfield.
7. Claims 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, and Ho.
4
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
8. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, Ho, and
Orwant.
9. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, and Dutta.
IO.Claims 46, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent and Asthana.
11.Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, and Ho.
12.Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, and Petersen.
13.Claims 49, 52, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and Official Notice.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicants regard as the invention?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 24--
26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Laurent, Asthana, and Gaspard, II?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2-5 and 18-21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II,
and Ho?
5
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6, 7, 22 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II,
Ho, and Orwant?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11, 27, 33, 34 and 41-44
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana,
Gaspard, II, and Peterson?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 14 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and
Bellesfield?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 35-38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson,
and Ho?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson,
Ho, and Orwant?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, and Dutta.
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 46, 50 and 51under35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent and Asthana?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and Ho?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and Petersen?
6
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 49, 52, and 53 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and Official
Notice?
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner's factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S. C. §112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the
invention.
According to the Examiner, "it does not make sense to compare the
difference between two or more transit latency probability distributions to a
threshold value, as the answer, as long as there are two distributions, will
always be zero (since 1-1=0)." Non-Final Action 4.
We disagree with the Examiner's position for the reasons stated in the
Brief. Br. 10-11. Moreover, the Examiner's statements give no indication
that the claims have been read in light of the Specification. Nor has a claim
construction analysis been conducted in an attempt to ascertain the meaning
of the claim terms. "If the claims, read in the light of the specifications,
reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of
the invention, and if the language is as precise as the subject matter permits,
the courts can demand no more." Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood
Corp., 258 F.2d 124, 136 (2d Cir. 1958). The questions of scope and the
hypothetical possibilities the claims could cover reflects a concern over the
7
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
breadth of the claims. But "[b]readth is not indefiniteness." In re Gardner,
427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 1--45 and 50-53
The rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 24-26, 28, 29, 31, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and
Gaspard, II.
Claim 1 is an independent claim from which claims 8-10, 12, 13, 15,
and 16 depend. Claim 1 7 is an independent claim from which claims 24--26,
28, 29, 31, and 32 depend.
The Examiner takes the position that Laurent discloses all that is
claimed in claim 1 but for
grouping said plurality of destination locations according
to a similarity criterion into a plurality of subsets corresponding
to respective geographical regions; wherein respective transit
characteristics of destination locations grouped into a given
respective geographical region each satisfy said similarity
criterion, and wherein each of the geographical regions is
geographically defined by a respective set of dimensions, such
that said grouping of destination locations into subsets occurs
dependent upon the empirical transit data;
dynamically updating ... said grouping of destination
locations into geographical regions ... ;
wherein for at least a given one of the geographical regions,
dynamically updating a grouping of destination locations into said
given geographical region comprises, in response to updating said
respective transit characteristics to reflect additional empirical transit
data that is different from previous empirical transit data, regrouping
8
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
at least some of said destination locations dependent upon said
additional empirical transit data and, based on said additional
empirical transit data, changing the respective set of dimensions that
geographically define the given geographical region.
Non-Final Act. 10-11.
Asthana is relied upon as disclosing the "grouping said plurality of
destination locations ... " and "updating a grouping of destination locations
into said given geographical region" limitations. Non-Final Act. 11-13.
Gaspard is relied upon for "dynamically" updating said grouping of
destination locations. Non-Final Act. 14.
and,
According to the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) at the time of invention to modify the teachings of
Laurant [sic] for grouping locations and updating said grouping of
locations as taught by Asthana because this would organize the areas
in a logical and easily accessible manner (col. 4, lines 60-63), thereby
benefitting the client by simplifying the prediction of transit
characteristics [Non-Final Act. 13],
[i]t would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) at the time of invention to modify the teachings of
Laurant [sic] and Asthana to include dynamically updating said
grouping of destination locations as taught by Gaspard because this
would allow for updating of information as changes occur (col. 3,
lines 19-24), which would benefit the client by having the most
current information available [Non-Final Act. 14].
The Appellants disagree in part on the ground that the "surety"
limitation is not disclosed in Laurent as alleged by the Examiner. See
Appeal Br. 14--15. According to the Appellants, "the recited 'surety factor'
is specific to a 'given transit characteristic,' in that the 'surety factor
includes a cumulative probability that said given transit characteristic will be
9
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
achieved."' Id. at 15. Laurent's disclosure of "shipper confidence" does not
correspond "to a mathematical probability at all, much less a cumulative
probability that a particular transit characteristic will be achieved, as recited
in claim 1." Id. We agree.
Claim 1 calls for a surety factor, "wherein said respective surety factor
includes a cumulative probability that said given transit characteristic will be
achieved," the "said given transit characteristic" being "an additional
empirically-observed aspect of a transit of material between [a] source
location and acorresponding [ ] destination location[]." According to claim
1, the "surety factor" is correlated with "a given transit characteristic from
[a] source location to a given geographical region" by a given "respective
distribution associated with each of said geographical regions."
According to the Examiner paras. 72-7 4 disclose the claimed "surety
factor." Non-Final Act. 7. Para 74, reproduced below, is specifically relied
upon.
[0074] If appropriate, forecast delivery module 322 works in
conjunction with risk assessment module 334 to compute the risk
associated with the forecast data. In an embodiment, the shipper may
be asked to furnish a plurality of parameters (e.g., 8 in one case) that
reflect the risk probabilities associated with various aspects of the
forecast data. For example, the risk probability parameters may
include location, age of project, lane stability, capacity, etc. These
risk probability parameters are then aggregated into a single value
known as the shipper confidence level, which may then be employed
to quantify the risk level associated with the furnished data from that
particular shipper. In another embodiment, the historical forecast data
from a particular shipper (i.e., forecast data supplied by a particular
shipper in the past) is compared with the historical actual shipment
data from that particular shipper to determine the extent of the
difference between the historical forecast data and the actual shipment
10
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
data. When taken over many samples, this difference reflects the risk
associated with the forecast data from that particular shipper.
According to the Examiner, the disclosed "shipper confidence level is
interpreted as 'respective surety factor' and where 'forecast data for a
particular time frame' is interpreted as a 'respective distribution."' Non-
Final Act. 7.
The difficulty with the Examiner's interpretation is that it is not rooted
in a claim construction analysis. The "surety factor" as claimed "includes a
cumulative probability that said given transit characteristic will be
achieved". The discussion in the Specification discusses "cumulative
distribution" in a statistical sense. See, e.g.,
[0041] In general, the total or cumulative probability that a transit
time will be less than or equal to a given transit time, according to a
particular probability distribution, is given by the sum of all
probabilities for transit times less than or equal to the given transit
time. Such a sum may be obtained, for example, by determining the
area under the probability distribution curve between 0 and the given
transit time, such as by performing numerical or analytical integration
of the probability distribution curve. For example, referring to FIG. 5,
the total probability that a transit time will be less than or equal to 2.0
days is equal to the area under the curve between 0 and 2.0, or
approximately 61 %. That is, according to the illustrated probability
distribution, there is a 61 % total probability or confidence that transit
to region 200 will be complete in 2.0 days or less. Cumulative
probability may also be referred to herein as a surety factor or simply
as surety. For example, for the distribution of FIG. 5, there exists a
98% surety that a given shipment to region 200 will be complete in
approximately 3.4 days or less.
As a statistical term, "cumulative probability" ordinarily "refers to the
probability that the value of a random variable falls within a specified
range." See "Statistics and Probability Dictionary" at
11
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
http://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=Cumulative probabil
ity (accessed June 21, 206). Accordingly, the claim phrases "surety factor"
and "cumulative probability" are reasonably broadly construed to cover a
probability that an empirically-observed aspect of a transit of material
between a source location and a corresponding destination location falls
within a specified range.
In contrast to claim 1 's "cumulative probability"/"surety factor" as
those phrases are reasonably broadly construed, paragraph 7 4 of Laurent
discloses asking a shipper for risk probability parameters, such as "location,
age of project, lane stability, capacity, etc." These parameters are
"aggregated into a single value known as the shipper confidence level,
which may then be employed to quantify the risk level associated with the
furnished data from that particular shipper." One of ordinary skill in the art
reading this disclosure would be led to obtain a single value representing an
aggregation of risk probability parameters which could then be used to
quantify a risk level.
Claim 1 's "cumulative probability"/"surety factor" requires more
however. It requires that the value be a probability that an empirically-
observed aspect of a transit of material between a source location and a
corresponding destination location falls within a specified range. A single
value representing an aggregation of risk probability parameters which could
then be used to quantify a risk level, as Laurent discloses, is alone
insufficient as evidence to find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to provide for a "cumulative probability"/"surety factor" as
claimed, let alone determine a respective distribution associated with a
12
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
geographical region, "wherein a given respective distribution correlates a
given transit characteristic from said source location to a given geographical
region with a respective surety factor" (claim 1 ).
For the foregoing reasons, a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been made out in the first instance by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. Independent claim 17
includes the same "surety" limitation that is at issue with respect to claim 1
and therefore the rejection of claim 17 is similarly not sustained. The
rejection of claims 8-10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 and claims 24--26, 28, 29, 31,
and 32 which depend from claims 1 and 17 respectively is not sustained for
the same reasons.
The rejection of claims 2-5and18-21under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and Ho.
The rejection of claims 2-5 and claims 18-21 which depend from
claims 1 and 17, respectively, is not sustained for the reasons discussed.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Ho, and Orwant.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 and claims 22 and 23 which depend
from claims 1 and 17, respectively, is not sustained for the reasons
discussed.
The rejection of claims 11, 27, 33, 34 and 41-44 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and Peterson.
The rejection of claims 11 which depends from claim 1 and claim 27
which depends from claim 17 is not sustained for the reasons stated.
13
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
Independent claim 33, from which claims 34 and 41-44 depend,
includes the "surety" limitation discussed above. For the reasons stated, the
rejection of claims 33, 34 and 41-44 are not sustained.
The rejection of claims 14 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, IL and Bellesfield.
Claim 14 which depends from claim 1 and claim 30 which depends
from claim 1 7 is not sustained for the reasons stated.
The rejection of claims 35-38 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, and Ho.
The rejection of claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, Ho, and
Orwant.
The rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S. C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, IL Peterson, and Dutta.
The rejection of claims 35--40 and 45 which depend from claim 33 is
not sustained for the reasons discussed above.
The rejection of claim 50 and 51under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent and Asthana.
The rejection of claims 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and Official Notice.
Claims 50-53 depend from claim 46 and include the "surety"
limitation discussed above. For the reasons stated, the rejections of claims
50-53 are not sustained.
Claims 4 6--4 9
14
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
The rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S. C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent and Asthana.
Claim 46 is an independent claim. It differs from the other
independent claims 1, 17, and 33 in part in not including the "surety"
limitation.
The arguments challenging the rejection of claim 46 are not
persuasive as to error in the rejection.
The Appellants argue that, in contrast to the cited prior art, "claim 46
recites a transit characteristic model that is determined dependent upon
'collected empirical data for a plurality of previously shipped shipments of
material.'" Appeal Br. 42. The Appellants also argue that the "cited art
fails to teach or suggest a transit characteristic model that is configured
to 'predict respective transit characteristics from a given source location to
each [off a plurality of geographical regions.'" Appeal Br. 43.
Laurent, which the Examiner relied on as disclosing the transit
characteristic model claimed (see Non-Final Act. 41--42) discloses collecting
capacity and shipping volume data including historical, spot-market, and
forecast data. See Laurent para. 72. Furthermore, Laurent discloses
"shipping volume (which itself includes origination and destination
identification, volume, time frame, any constraints, etc.)." Laurent para. 72
(emphasis added). In other words, the capacity and shipping volume data
includes origination and destination identification data. Also, according to
Laurent
a forwarder may wish to obtain forecast data pertaining to a group of
shippers whose goods originate from a particular location in a
particular time frame. As a further example, a carrier may wish to
obtain forecast data for a particular time frame pertaining to a
15
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
particular mode, a particular geographic segment, a particular region,
etc.
Laurent para. 73 (emphasis added). And finally Laurent discloses a
shipper's risk probability based on a variety of transit data including
"historical actual shipment data". See Laurent para. 74.
Given this disclosure of transit data including historical data and risk
probability, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
position that Laurent would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to form a
transit characteristic model that is determined dependent upon "collected
empirical data for a plurality of previously shipped shipments of material"
and configured to "predict respective transit characteristics from a given
source location to each [of] a plurality of geographical regions."
The Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive as to error in the
rejection.
The rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S. C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, and Ho.
The rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S. C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, and Petersen.
The rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S. C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Laurent, Asthana, and Official Notice.
Claims 4 7--49 depend from independent claim 46 and do not include
the "surety" limitation discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 17,
and 33.
We see no argument challenging the rejections of claims 47 and 48.
The challenge to the rejection of claim 49 is based on an attorney argument
16
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
that has no evidentiary basis; the argument being that "[i]f a person dropped
a package off at the post office without the complete address, the Post
Office would not ship the package." Appeal Br. 46. In fact, for example, a
complete address ordinarily includes a zipcode and yet the Post Office will
ship a package without a zipcode.
The rejections of claims 47--49 are sustained.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 24-26, 28, 29, 31, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana,
and Gaspard, II is reversed.
The rejection of claims 2-5 and 18-21under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and Ho is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Ho, and Orwant is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 11, 27, 33, 34 and 41--44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and
Peterson is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, and Bellesfield is reversed.
17
Appeal2013-007337
Application 11/094,505
The rejection of claims 35-38 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, and Ho is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, Ho, and Orwant
is reversed.
The rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, Gaspard, II, Peterson, and Dutta is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent and Asthana is reversed.
The rejection of claims 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent, Asthana, and Official Notice is reversed.
The rejections of claims 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laurent and Asthana; Laurent, Asthana, and Ho; Laurent,
Asthana, and Petersen; and, Laurent, Asthana, and Official Notice,
repectively, are affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-53 is affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18