Ex Parte Tamarkin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2014

11321323 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte NOAM TAMARKIN, ADI CHIBEL, RONI AVNI,
and ARIEH SHIMRON
_____________

Appeal 2011-013378
Application 11/321,323
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013378
Application 11/321,323

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-18, and 21.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in finding that
Heinrichs teaches stock allocations at each of multiple levels and
stock allocations registered at a higher level stock location do not
have corresponding stock allocations at the lower level stock location
because:
. . . the final office action's rationale for the rejection of claim 1
also includes the Examiner's characterization, of Heinrichs, that
a "Higher level stock location allocates the stocks to the
different lower level stock locations." (Final office action, at
page 4.) This statement is even included in the Examiner's
Answer (at page 13). If anything, such an approach is the
opposite of the recited claim language, which states that "stock
allocations registered at a higher level stock location do not
have corresponding stock allocations at the lower level stock
locations that are spatially included in the higher level stock
location".
(Reply Br. 3).

We agree with the Appellants that Heinrichs discloses allocating stock
to lower level stock locations and does not disclose allocating stock to
higher level stock locations. We also agree with the Appellants that the
Examiner has admitted as much on page 14 of the Answer. As Heinrichs
does not disclose that any stock is allocated to higher level stock locations,
Heinrichs does not disclose allocating stock to multiple levels or that stock
allocated to higher level locations do not have corresponding stock
Appeal 2011-013378
Application 11/321,323

3

allocations at lower level stock locations. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 3-8.
We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11
and dependent claims 13-18 and 21 because claim 11 includes the similar
language to claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh