Sonoco Development, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2020

15219564 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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.
15/219,564 07/26/2016 John Weiker 70002A/PRO-05004-US 4958
140278 7590 07/23/2020
Sonoco Development Inc./Miller, Matthias & Hull
One North Franklin Street
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MILLER, BRITTNEY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2020 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):
bmatthias@millermatthiashull.com
jfassnacht@millermatthiashull.com
ynunez@millermatthiashull.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN WEIKER
____________

Appeal 2020-001989
Application 15/219,564
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Sonoco Development, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-001989
Application 15/219,564

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to
a system for verifying that a customer’s part or part assembly
requirements are satisfied and for creating a label for a shipping
container in which parts or assemblies are shipped to the
customer. The system also is capable of verifying that the label
matches the parts and/or assemblies that have been loaded into
the shipping container.

Spec. 1:7–11. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for verifying that a customer’s part or
assembly requirements are satisfied and for creating a label for
a shipping container in which parts or assemblies are shipped to
the customer, the system also capable of verifying that the label
matches the parts and/or assemblies that have been loaded into
the shipping container, the system comprising:
a customer database for storing the customer’s part or
assembly requirements, the customer database accessible to
both the customer and the user;
a user database for storing part and assembly
information, including the components required for the
assembly;
a server computer in communication with the customer
database and the user database;
a user computer in communication with the server
computer;
a touchscreen monitor in communication with the user
computer for receiving touchscreen input from an operator, the
touchscreen input including the operator’s identity;
one or more infrared (IR) vision sensors and/or laser
sensors for identifying a part or assembly to be loaded into the
container and to verify that the part or assembly is correct;
a software program run locally or remotely for verifying
that the customer’s part or assembly requirements are satisfied
and for creating the shipping container label; and
Appeal 2020-001989
Application 15/219,564

3
a printer for printing the label in response to input
received from the user computer.

References and Rejections2

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1, 2 103 Willard (US 2014/0360141 A1; pub. Dec. 11,
2014), Asaria (US 2013/0317642 A1; pub.
Nov. 28, 2013)
3 103 Willard, Asaria, Ebel (US 5,568,715 A; Oct.
29, 1996)

ANALYSIS

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Willard
teach “the customer database accessible to both the customer and the user,”
as recited in independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3–6; Reply Br. 1–4.
The Examiner cites Willard’s Figure 1 and paragraphs 9, 27, and 38
for teaching the disputed claim limitation. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–4. We
have reviewed the cited Willard portions, and they do not describe “the
customer database accessible to both the customer and the user,” as required
by claim 1 (emphasis added). To the contrary, the cited Willard portions
depict a packaging database accessible to a workstation user—not “both the

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated July
31, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Nov. 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
(3) Examiner’s Answer dated Dec. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief
dated Jan. 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-001989
Application 15/219,564

4
customer and the user.” See Willard ¶ 38 (“the package database 20 may be
stored in a memory of the workstation 12 or remotely from the workstation
12”); Fig. 1 (showing the package database is accessible via the
workstation).
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, one skilled in the art would not
consider “allowing the customer’s order items to be stored” in the package
database (Ans. 3) to mean “the . . . database [is] accessible to . . . the
customer,” because that arrangement does not grant the customer any access
to the package database. Our interpretation of the disputed limitation is
consistent with the Specification, which explains the “customer may
communicate to the supplier the customer’s part or assembly requirements
by allowing the supplier access to a customer database 34 on which is stored
the customer’s part or assembly requirements.” Spec. 9:3–5; see also Fig. 1
(showing customer database 34 is accessible to both customer computer 42
and user computer 14).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2 and 3. Although the Examiner cites an additional reference for
rejecting dependent claim 3, the Examiner has not shown the additional
reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim
1.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-001989
Application 15/219,564

5

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103 Willard, Asaria 1, 2
3 103 Willard, Asaria,
Ebel
3
Overall
Outcome
1–3

REVERSED