Opex Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

14584284 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

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.
14/584,284 12/29/2014 John Allen P05045US02 1784
156121 7590 08/03/2020
Opex Corporation
305 Commerce Dr
Moorestown, NJ 08057
EXAMINER
HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
kpaul@opex.com
seland@opex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ALLEN, ROBERT R DEWITT, and
JOSEPH VALINSKY

Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Opex Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to apparatuses and methods for processing
mail. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
10. A method for feeding envelopes containing contents,
comprising the steps of:
stacking a plurality of envelopes containing contents in an
input bin to form a stack of envelopes in which the envelopes are
in a generally vertical orientation;
displacing the stack toward a feeder;
sensing the pressure of the stack against the feeder;
driving the feeder to attempt to feed an envelope from the
stack;
detecting whether the feeder fed the envelope from the
stack;
iteratively driving the stack toward and away from the
feeder and driving the feeder to attempt to feed the envelope in
response to the sensed pressure of the stack against the feeder
and detecting that the feeder has not fed the envelope from the
stack.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 3–4.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Ricciardi US 4,955,596 Sept. 11, 1990
Svyatsky US 5,224,695 July 6, 1993
Hendricks US 7,404,554 B2 July 29, 2008

Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Svyatsky.
II. Claims 1–3, 6–10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ricciardi and Svyatsky.
III. Claims 4, 5, 11–13, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ricciardi, Svyatsky, and Hendricks.
OPINION
Rejection I–Anticipation by Svyatsky (Claim 10)
The Examiner finds that Svyatsky discloses all of the steps recited in
claim 10, and, with respect to the step of “detecting whether the feeder fed
the envelope from the stack,” finds that Svyatsky discloses detection (via
generator 54 and wheel assembly 55) of the pressure the stack of documents
exerts against feeder 14. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner concludes that such
detection of pressure satisfies the requirement in claim 10 to detect whether
the feeder fed an envelope because “[t]he pressure of the stack would be
indicative of the success of feeding the lead envelope, [i.e.,] increase and
thus the system would detect this and act to correct.” Id. at 3 (citing
Svyatsky, col. 5:55–62).
Appellant argues that claim 10 requires operation of the system in
response to two distinct inputs, namely, (i) sensed pressure and (ii) detection
of whether the feeder has fed an envelope from the stack. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appellant contends “[t]here is nothing in Svyatsky that teaches iteratively
displacing the stack of documents in response to detecting whether a
document is fed.” Id. at 12. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding
that Svyatsky discloses detecting whether the feeder fed an envelope
Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

4
conflates the two inputs required in claim 10. Id. Specifically, Appellant
contends, “[e]ssentially the Examiner interprets the claim as simply relying
upon detecting stack pressure.” Id.
In response, the Examiner determines that, “[w]hile first and second
sensors are positively recited in claim 1, claim 10 does not require both
separately sensing conditions of stack pressure and failure to feed an
envelope.” Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds that, in Svyatsky, pressure on
the stack is so closely related to the process of feeding envelopes that a
change in pressure is an indication of whether an envelope was fed. See id.
at 7–9. Specifically, the Examiner finds “[t]he discussion [in Svyatsky] of
when excessive force at the roller assembly 20 is sensed and subsequent
control of motor 57 (moving stack away from feeder 20) is considered a
detection of the condition of when a leading envelope has not been fed and
subsequent response thereto.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added).
In reply, Appellant reiterates that Svyatsky fails to detect whether an
envelope has been fed, and, therefore, fails to disclose taking any particular
action in response to such detection. See Reply Br. 3–5.2 In this regard,
Appellant states, “[t]he feeder [in Svyatsky] continuously runs and the stack
is driven toward and away from the continuous feeder to try to maintain the
stack pressure against the feeder. Therefore, there is no need to determine
whether a document has been fed and whether another document needs to be
fed.” Id. at 4.

2 The Reply Brief does not include page numbering. Our reference to page
numbers in the Reply Brief assumes page 1 of the Reply Brief is the first
page after the title page.
Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

5
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner has not
established that the mere detection of pressure of the stack of envelopes in
Svyatsky’s system amounts to detection of whether an envelope has been
fed. Although the feed or failure to feed may affect the amount of pressure
on the stack of envelopes in Svyatsky, the Examiner does not cite to any
portion of Svyatsky that indicates that these pressure and the feed of
envelopes are so closely correlated that measuring pressure amounts to
detection of whether an envelope has been fed. Further, claim 10 recites
both “sensing pressure” and “detecting whether the feeder fed an envelope.”
Thus, the text of claim 10 implies that these two steps are different.
Further, we agree with Appellant that the system in Svyatsky attempts
to feed envelopes continuously and adjusts pressure on the stack of
envelopes in order to facilitate such continuous operation. See Svyatsky,
Abstract, 3:59–64, 6:7–24. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the process
disclosed in Svyatsky does not require detection of the feeding of individual
envelopes, and, further, that Svyatsky’s process does not disclose taking any
particular action (such as “driving the stack toward and away from the
feeder” as recited in claim 10) in response to detection of whether an
envelope has been fed. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 10 as anticipated by Svyatsky.

Rejection II–Unpatentability over Ricciardi and Svyatsky
(Claims 1–3, 6–10, and 14)
Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim that, in some respects,
requires control of a system in a manner similar to the method recited in
claim 14. Specifically, claim 1 recites a controller configured to control a
Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

6
feeder and a pusher in response to signals from first and second sensors
“wherein the controller drives the pusher away from the feeder in response
to a signal from the second sensor indicating that a document was not fed
from the stack after the feeder was actuated.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
Similarly, independent claim 14 is an apparatus claim reciting a
controller operable to control a feeder and a pusher in response to signals
from a first sensor that senses the pressure of a stack of envelopes against
the feeder and a second sensor that detects whether the feeder feeds an
envelope. Appeal Br., Claims App. 4. Claim 14 requires that “the controller
iteratively drives the pusher toward and away from the feeder and drives the
feeder to attempt to feed the envelope in response to signals from the first
and second sensors.” Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner relies on Ricciardi to disclose an apparatus having
many of the structural elements recited in claim 1, but relies on Svyatsky to
teach a controller that drives the pusher away from the feeder “as claimed.”
Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to include the control process and actuator as taught
by [Svyatsky] in the invention to Ricciardi in order to maintain a pressure
within a desired range at the feeder.” Id. at 3–4.
Appellant makes arguments similar to those discussed above
regarding the Examiner’s finding that Svyatsky discloses detecting whether
an envelope was fed by the feeder and then taking an action in response to
that detection. See Appeal Br. 15–16. Specifically, Appellant states, “the
Examiner’s contention that Svyatsky will drive the stack away from the
feeder when a document does not feed is based on a flawed reading of
Svyatsky.” Id. at 15.
Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

7
In response, the Examiner states, “control of the pusher of Ricciardi
would ordinarily coincide with conveyor belt control as taught by Svyatsky
in the proposed combination. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily
recognize that manipulating control of pusher 124 [of Ricciardi] would be
necessary to perform the movement of the stack as taught by Svyatsky.”
Ans. 10.
The Examiner’s response does not address Appellant’s argument
regarding the alleged deficiency in the control disclosed by Svyatsky. Thus,
for the same reasons discussed above regarding Rejection I, we do not
sustain Rejection II.

Rejection III–Unpatentability over Ricciardi, Svyatsky, and Hendricks
(Claims 4, 5, 11–13, and 15–17)
Claims 4, 5, 11–13, and 15–17 depend from one of independent
claims 1, 10, and 14. See Appeal Br., Claims App 2–5. The Examiner does
not use the teachings of Hendricks in any manner that would remedy the
deficiency discussed above regarding Rejections I and II. Accordingly, for
the same reasons, we do not sustain Rejection III.

Appeal 2019-004341
Application 14/584,284

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10 102(b) Svyatsky 10
1–3, 6–10,
14
103(a) Ricciardi, Svyatsky 1–3, 6–10,
14
4, 5, 11–13,
15–17
103(a) Ricciardi, Svyatsky,
Hendricks
4, 5, 11–
13, 15–17
Overall
Outcome
1–17

REVERSED