Ex Parte Pippin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13277565 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/277,565 10/20/2011
28524 7590 03/30/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James M. Pippin
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.
2010P21958 USOl 3838
EXAMINER
FERRERO, EDUARDO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES M. PIPPIN 1
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277,565
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-14 and 16-20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies Siemens Industry, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 17, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An automatic unbundling system, comprising:
an input unit configured to receive polywrapped bundles each
including a plurality of items;
a conveyor system configured to transport the polywrapped
bundles;
an automatic unwrapping machine configured to receive each of
the bundles from the conveyor system and unwrap each of the
bundles, wherein the conveyor system then transports the unwrapped
plurality of items away from the automatic unwrapping machine; and
a loose stack accumulator configured to receive, combine, and
stack the unwrapped plurality of items from successive bundles.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix 1).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Porter '853 (US 2009/0113853 Al,
pub. May 7, 2009) and Bums (US 2007/0131593 Al, pub. June 14, 2007).
Claims 2, 4, 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Porter '853, Bums, and Rundle (US 2008/0192978 Al,
pub. Aug. 14, 2008).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Porter '853, Bums, and Porter '695 (US 7,174,695 B2, iss. Feb. 13, 2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Porter '853, Bums, Jacobsen (US 2004/0139692 Al, pub. July 22, 2004),
and Panter (US 5,212,621, iss. May 18, 1993).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Porter '853, Bums, Fraser (US 7,549,274 B2, iss. June 23, 2009), and Isaacs
(US 6,401,936 Bl, iss. June 11, 2002).
2
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20
Rejected Over Porter '853 and Burns
Appellant argues claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 11 as a group. We select
claim 1 as representative, with claims 6-8, 10, and 11 standing or falling
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 11
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Porter '853 teaches the
claimed system including conveyor system 112, 120, automatic unwrapping
machine 150, and work station 190 where unbundled items are received and
placed into a mobile cart or conveyable bucket for subsequent loading to a
sorting system, except a loose stack accumulator as claimed. Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner finds that Bums teaches a system with a loose stack
accumulator (sorter assembly 12) that sorts articles according to a delivery
point sequence or a carrier walk sequence, i.e., in the order to be delivered.
Id. at 3. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to include the
sorter of Bums in the system of Porter to sort articles that will be delivered
on the same route into their delivery order. Id. The Examiner also finds that
Bums teaches to receive loose items on induct end 16 and combine the loose
items in sorter 12, which stacks loose items in trays 25, as claimed. Ans. 9.
Appellant argues that the purpose of the loose stack accumulator is to
"accumulate" unbundled items by receiving, combining, and stacking them
together, and the sorter of Bums receives an incoming stream of "articles"
and separates and sorts the articles into different containers in two different
passes. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant also argues that Bums does not teach
"combining" any of the sorted articles. Id. at 21.
3
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Porter '853 teaches an
automatic unbundling system that lacks only a loose stack accumulator.
Porter '853 teaches that bundles wrapped with a polymeric film and/or
strapped are unbundled at automatic unwrapping machine 150, and passed to
work station 190. Porter '853 i-fi-123, 58. There, an operator receives each
opened bundle, removes and discards outer wrapping and bands, and places
each bundle into a cart for further manual loading to a sorting system. Id.
The Examiner proposes to improve Porter '853 's system by receiving
and processing these opened bundles, as taught by Bums. Bums teaches to
receive unbundled items and combine them in different containers 25 via
sorter 12. Bums i-f 12; Final Act. 3. As modified, Porter '853 thus receives
bundles of flat mail, magazines, and catalogs grouped by zip code at loading
station 110, sends them via conveyors 112, 120 to bundle opening station
150 to unwrap them. Porter '853 i-fi-12, 3, 25--40. Then, opened bundles go
to Bums' sorter assembly 12, which receives each of the opened bundles in
succession and combines them via chutes 24 into stacks in containers 25
according to zip code delivery sequence. Bums i-fi-f 19, 79--80, Figs. 1, 3, 7,
8; Final Act. 3; Ans. 9. Like Porter '853 (i-f 2), Bums' system sorts flat mail.
Bums i1 2; see Spec. i-fi-f l 0-13 (discussing the present disclosure as directed
to bundled magazines delivered to mail processing centers).
Bums' sorter assembly is configured to receive, combine, and stack
the unwrapped bundles of Porter '853 as recited for the claimed loose stack
accumulator. Sorter assembly 12, 18 receives unwrapped items via
conveyor 14, uses a carousel to combine them into chutes 24, which then
stack the combined articles (e.g., unwrapped bundles) in containers 25
positioned under chutes 25. Bums i-fi-178-80, Figs. 1, 3, 7, 8; see Ans. 9.
4
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Appellant's arguments that Bums teaches a sorter that "does just the
opposite" of the claimed loose stack accumulator as "it takes the incoming
articles ... and sorts/separates them to their new sort destinations" (Appeal
Br. 19; Reply Br. 13) is not persuasive. First, a reference does not have to
disclose a claimed feature using the same jargon as an applicant. Second,
Appellant discloses that loose stack accumulator 116 (or optional tray 134)
can receive loose stacks from conveyor 132 via "a sort action when loose
stacks drop into the loose stack accumulator 116 or optional tray 134 either
[of] which can receive, combine and stack successive loose stacks." Spec.
i-f 30 (emphasis added). The system has multiple trays and accumulators,
and it transports unwrapped bundles to respective accumulators or trays. Id.
The Specification thus describes receiving unwrapped items at loose
stack accumulator or tray 134 from conveyor 132 via a sort action. Id. The
Specification does not describe any other feature of loose stack accumulator
116 or its functions of combining and stacking items that drop onto it. Id.
The Specification discloses accumulator 116, 416 schematically as a square-
shaped surface positioned beneath a conveyor 106/132 in Figures 1 and 4.
Bums teaches a similar arrangement in which unwrapped items are
conveyed successively to sorter assembly 12, which combines the items into
stacks in containers or trays 25 by zip codes until containers or trays 25 "are
at least partially filled with articles." Bums i-fi-1 79--81; Ans. 9. Chutes 24 of
sorter assembly 12 combine and orient received items into stacks2 within
each container or tray 25 as recited for the claimed loose stack accumulator.
2 An ordinary meaning of "stack" includes "an orderly pile or heap." See
Definition of stack by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/stack (last viewed Mar. 13, 2018).
5
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
As Appellant argues "[ t ]he point of the loose stack accumulator is to
'accumulate' the unbundled items - receive, combine, and stack them to
keep them together." Appeal Br. 20. Bums teaches such a device. The first
pass through sortation assembly 12 provides the receiving, combining, and
stacking required of the loose stack accumulator. Any subsequent passes of
items through sortation assembly 12 does not undermine the fact that Bums
teaches the claimed loose stack accumulator as sortation assembly 12 in a
first pass of received items that receives, combines, and stacks the items in
containers 25 or trays using chutes 24 as discussed above. That sortation
assembly 12 may receive, combine, and stack items a second or third time to
achieve a delivery order sequence is not precluded by claim 1, which recites
a system "comprising" various elements including loose stack accumulator.
Indeed, Appellant discloses that the system transports bundles from loose
stack accumulator 116 to sorting system 118 where bundles are placed in
output lanes 120 and trays according to a sort plan. Spec. i-fi-130-32.
The Examiner's reason for combining Bums' sorter assembly 12 with
the unbundling system of Porter '853 is supported by a rational underpinning
based on the express teachings of Bums that the sorter assembly combines
and stacks articles into sorted sequence for delivery. Bums i12; Final Act. 3.
As discussed above, Porter '853 receives and opens bundles of flat mail that
are grouped by zip codes. Porter '853 i-fi-12-3. The Examiner has modified
Porter '853 with Bums' sorter assembly 12 to combine opened bundles of
Porter '853 into a delivery sequence. As a result, Appellant's allegations of
improper hindsight are not persuasive. See In re Cree, 818 F .3d 694, 702
n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (hindsight argument is of no moment if the Examiner
provides a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references).
6
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
The fact that sort assembly 12 receives, combines, and stacks articles
rather than "successive bundles" (Appeal Br. 19-20) is not material. This
piecemeal attack on the references is unpersuasive when the Examiner relies
on their combined teachings. Porter '853 unwraps bundled items and then
outputs unwrapped bundles in succession to work station 190. Porter '853
i-f 5 8. Appellant does not dispute that this system satisfies claim 1, except for
the claimed loose stack accumulator. Final Act. 2-3; see Appeal Br. 18-24.
The Examiner modifies Porter '853 with Bums' sorter assembly 12 so
that each unwrapped bundle is received, combined, and stacked by sortation
assembly 12 of Bums as discussed above. The Examiner is not proposing,
nor does Bums teach, to unbundle or separate items in a bundle into separate
articles such that the plurality of items from a bundle would be separated
from each other as Appellant appears to allege. Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br.
15. Bums receives articles and combines and stacks each complete article as
described. As combined with Porter '853, sortation assembly 12 of Bums
would receive successive unwrapped bundles output from Porter '853 and
combine and stack the unwrapped plurality of items from successive bundles
as claimed. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 11.
Claim 3
The Examiner relies on Porter '853 to teach "a tray-filling system that
places the unwrapped plurality of items in a tray." Final Act. 3. Appellant
argues that Porter '853 teaches a system that manually places articles into
empty "buckets" rather than a tray-filling system as claimed and the buckets
cannot be considered trays as claimed. Appeal Br. 24--25; Reply Br. 19-20.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 3.
7
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Appellant's argument appears to imply that the claimed "tray-filling
system" is an automated or automatic system. However, claim 3 is not so
limited in scope because Appellant discloses that the automated unbundling
system can include a sorting system 118/tray-filling system 418 that is either
(1) "an automatic tray loader" (Spec. i-fi-132, 65) or (2) can include manual
tray stations 442 (id. i-fi-133, 66). Claim 3 recites "a tray-filling system" not
an "automatic tray loader" or an automated tray-filling system. Appellant
also discloses that operators 408 located at individual tray fill stations can
remove stacks from conveyor 106, 406 and place them in a tray, as claimed.
When the trays are filled, the operator activates a proximity switch to cause
the filled tray to index and simultaneously advance the next empty tray into
the fill position. Id. i-fi-133, 66, Figs. 1, 4.
The Examiner's interpretation of claim 3 to read on the manual tray
filling station of Porter '853 is both reasonable and consistent with the plain
language of claim 3 interpreted in light of the Specification. See Ans. 10.
We also agree with the Examiner that Porter '853 's "buckets" in the
manual tray filling station teach or suggest the claimed "trays." Claim 3
does not recite any structural or functional features of the claimed "trays."
The Specification discloses filled trays 226 in Figure 2 as three-dimensional
box-like structures. See Spec. i143. A skilled artisan would understand the
"buckets" of Porter '853 to be similar three-dimensional structures designed
to hold a plurality of articles that are manually aligned and placed therein as
Porter '853 teaches to do. Porter '853 i15. This is particularly true given the
teaching in Bums of containers 25 as similar three-dimensional elements
that Bums also refers to as "trays" or "buckets." Porter '853 i-fi-180, 154.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
8
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Claim 13
The Examiner finds that Porter '853 teaches a "container dumper
receptacle" as recited in claim 13 in the form of a tilt box. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that the tilt box is the claimed "container dumper receptacle"
because no additional structure is recited to distinguish the claimed container
dumper receptacle from the tile box taught by Porter '853. Ans. 10.
Appellant argues claim 13 "requires that the input unit is a container
dumper receptacle" and Porter '853 "specifically teaches that an operator at
the loading station manually unloads bundles and places them individually
onto a load conveyor" so there is no teaching or suggestion of a container
dumper receptacle as claimed. Appeal Br. 27; Reply Br. 22. Appellant also
argues that the tilt box of Porter '853 does not receive polywrapped bundles
each including a plurality of items as claimed. Reply Br. 23.
We interpret "container dumper receptacle" to mean a device that
receives, holds, and discharges items. This meaning is consistent with the
claim language and ordinary meaning of "container," "dumper,"3 and
"receptacle." It also is consistent with the Specification, which discloses
that input station 202, 402 can be a container dumper receptacle that receives
bundles inside the receptacle dumper so an operator can activate a foot
peddle control switch to rotate the container dumper to empty bundles from
the container to flow towards the bundle work station. Spec. i-fi-f 18, 37, 55,
Figs. 2, 4. Figure 2 of Appellant's disclosure shows a box-shaped container
(unnumbered) that pivots toward input unit 202 to discharge bundles 200.
3 An ordinary meaning of "dump" includes "to let fall in or as if in a heap or
mass." Definition of dump by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/dump (last viewed Mar. 15, 2018).
9
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
We agree with the Examiner that Porter '853 teaches a tilt box or tilt
unit that can be tilted for ease of unloading unto load conveyor 15. Porter
'853 i-f 24. However, Porter '853 teaches that the tilt box can be tilted so an
operator 11 can then "manually unload[] bundles from the tilted box and
place[] them individually onto a load conveyor 15." Id. i-f 25. We agree with
Appellant that Porter '853 'stilt box does not correspond to the claimed
container dumper receptacle at least because the tilt box does not dump or
empty its contents. Instead an operator must unload bundles from the tilt
box manually. The Examiner has not cited sufficient evidence to find that
the tilt box can unload or dump its contents.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 14
The Examiner finds that Porter '853 discloses a bundle unwrapping
machine that "centers the bundle and clamps the bundle to unwrap the
bundle" as recited in dependent claim 14. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds
that Porter '853 discloses L-shaped pad 165 used to assist in holding the
plastic wrap and bands near the leading and top edges of bundle 60 in place
during cutting and debanding operation and therefore "it will be considered
that the clamp assembly 160 clamps and centers the bundle." Ans. 10.
We agree with Appellant that, while Porter '853 teaches pad 165 as
clamping bundle 60, we find no teaching that pad 165 also centers bundle 60
as claimed. Appeal Br. 29. The Examiner's finding that pad 165 centers a
bundle when it clamps the bundle effectively reads the "centers the bundle"
limitation out of claim 14. The Examiner has not explained sufficiently how
the act of clamping bundle 60 using pad 165 also centers bundle 60.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14.
10
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Independent Claim 19 and Claim 20
Claim 19 recites a method of receiving a polywrapped bundle at an
input unit, transporting the bundle to an automatic unwrapping machine to
unwrap the bundle, and transporting the unwrapped bundle on a conveyor to
a loose stack accumulator, where it is received, combined, and stacked in a
tray. Appeal Br. (Claims App'x 5). The Examiner determines that Porter
'853 and Bums render this method obvious for the same reasons as claim 1.
See Final Act. 2-3. Appellant raises similar arguments as were presented for
the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 29-33. These arguments are not
persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 17, and 18
Rejected Over Porter '853, Burns, and Rundle
Appellant argues claims 2, 4, and 5 as one group and claims 17 and 18
as another. Appeal Br. 34--44. We select claims 2 and 17 as representative
claims for each group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 2, 4, 5
Regarding claim 2, The Examiner relies on Rundle to teach a bundle
recognition and orientation verification unit that images a plurality of items
to create respective imaging information as claimed. Final Act. 4--5. The
Examiner finds that Rundle takes "image characteristics" of each item of
mail to create respective imaging information (Rundle i-fi-12, 6) and uses this
information to properly orient items (id. i-fi-120, 27) and to direct the items to
a tray for inspection and back-end processing if the image characteristics
match a threat profile (id. i137), or to direct the items for normal mail
processing if no threat is detected from the image (id. i1 29). Ans. 11.
11
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
The Examiner reasonably determines it would have been obvious to
include such feature in the modified system of Porter '853 so items go to
normal processing at a loose stack accumulator if no threat is detected or to a
tray for back processing, as claimed, if a threat is detected to avoid handling
and delivering dangerous items as Rundle teaches. Final Act. 5; Ans. 11.
Appellant recites limitations of claims 2, 4, and 5 (Appeal Br. 34) and
the paragraphs of Rundle cited by the Examiner (id. at 35-38) and argues
that these paragraphs describe obtaining "image characteristics" of an image
of an item but do not teach or suggest a conveyor system including a bundle
recognition and orientation verification unit as recited in claim 2 (Id. at 38).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because
they merely recite claim limitations and assert that Rundle does not disclose
the claimed features without explaining why this is so, e.g., by explaining
why the portions of Rundle relied on by the Examiner do not disclose any of
the claimed features recited in claim 2 (or claims 4 or 5). Such argument is
not effective argument to apprise us of Examiner error such that we would
have a basis for reversing the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5. See
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (approving of Board's
practice as set forth in Ex Parte Frye of requiring appellants to identify error
in a rejection); Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ 2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (a panel reviews rejections for error based on issues identified
by an appellant); see also 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv) ("arguments shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (appellant
must separately argue claims that appellant has grouped together by doing
more than merely pointing out what a claim recites).
12
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Moreover, Appellant discloses "imaging information" as information
such as address destination, size, fill level, and condition of the items. Spec.
i-f 29. Rundle captures "image characteristics" such as destination address,
return address, envelope size, type, postage, envelope characteristics, and the
like. Rundle i-f 52 (Table 1 ). The Examiner correctly finds that items that do
not match a threat profile are sent for normal processing as Rundle teaches.
Id. i-f 29. In the context of the modified Porter '853, normal processing is to
the loose stack accumulator for bundles that have been opened. For bundles
that meet a threat profile, back-end processing is taught by Rundle, which
the Examiner reasonably determines would be to a tray where mail pieces
can be inspected and/or neutralized as Rundle teaches. Id. i-f 37.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5.
Claims 1 7, 18
Independent claim 1 7 recites an automatic unbundling system similar
to claim 1 that unwraps and unstraps polywrapped bundles and conveys the
unwrapped or destrapped bundles based on imaging information. Appeal
Br. (Claims App'x 4). The Examiner relies on Porter '853 and Bums to
render obvious the unbundling system as for claim 1 and Rundle to teach
capturing imaging information as for claim 2 above. Final Act. 4--5.
Appellant recites the limitations of claim 1 7 and argues that Bums
does not disclose a loose stack accumulator for the same reasons as claim 1.
Appeal Br. 38--42. Appellant also argues that claim 17 requires a conveyor
system to transport items based on imaging information and Rundle does not
teach or suggest this feature for similar reasons as for claim 2. Id. at 43--44.
These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above
for claims 1 and 2. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18.
13
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Claim 9
Rejected Over Porter '853, Burns, and Porter '695
Appellant argues that Porter '695 fails to cure the deficiencies of
Porter '853 and Bums as to claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Appeal
Br. 45. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1, this argument is not
persuasive, and we also sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 12
Rejected Over Porter '853, Burns, Jacobsen, and Panter
The Examiner finds that Jacobsen teaches a proximity switch at a
manual tray filling station (actuator device 81) that an operator activates to
index a filled tray and advance an empty tray into a fill position as recited in
dependent claim 12. Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to include this feature in the modified system of Porter '853
based on Jacobsen's express teaching that automatic indexing improves the
efficiency and economy of the packaging and production process. Id. at 7.
Appellant recites limitations of claim 12 and the portions of Jacobsen
relied on by the Examiner and argues that actuator device 81 does not teach
an automatic unbundling system that indexes a filled tray and advances an
empty tray into a fill position as claimed. Appeal Br. 49--50. This argument
is not persuasive because it does not identify Examiner error or explain why
Jacobsen does not teach or suggest features of claim 12 as the Examiner's
has found. The Examiner correctly finds that Jacobsen teaches the use of
actuator device 81 by an operator to actuate removal mechanism 82, which
automatically removes a product-filled packing tray 61 from filling position
16 when an operator decides enough product is placed in it and moves the
filled tray 61 to conveyor 85, thus indexing the tray as claimed, while a new
tray is received from buffer 70 for the operator to fill. Jacobsen i-fi-157---60.
14
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
Appellant discloses that the claimed proximity switch is activated by
an operator once a tray is filled to cause the filled tray to index and advance
the next empty tray into position. Spec. i-f 33. Appellant's arguments attack
the references individually where the Examiner relies on Porter '853 to teach
an unbundling system as modified by Bums' loose stack accumulator and
Jacobsen to teach a proximity switch to incorporate into the modified Porter
'853 unbundling system to index filled trays as claimed.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 16
Rejected Over Porter '853, Burns, Fraser, and Isaacs
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites "an exception/reject chute
that moves bundles that cannot be automatically processed into a position for
manual processing." The Examiner relies on Fraser to teach a reject path 61
for bundles that are not completely "bundled" and thus cannot be processed
automatically until they are manually unbundled and Isaacs to teach a chute
to divert such items for diversion and reprocessing. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 12.
Appellant argues that Fraser teaches a reject path for products with
faulty film removal or product displacement, and Isaacs teaches a slide or
chute that returns items to a stream of items on a conveyor as the Examiner
finds. Appeal Br. 51-53. Appellant's argument that Fraser lacks a reject
chute is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Isaac for this feature.
Appellant's argument that Isaacs does not teach exception/reject chute for
bundles that cannot be processed automatically is not persuasive because the
Examiner relies on Fraser for this feature to teach the claimed reject path for
processing faulty products. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error in
this regard, and we sustain the rejection of claim 16.
15
Appeal2017-006128
Application 13/277 ,565
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-12 and 16-20, and we reverse
the rejection of claims 13 and 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16