Appeal 2006-3186
Application 10/700,364
1 ISSUE
2 The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
3 finding that Harding discloses or suggests an input device connected to a
4 void-measuring apparatus which enables the selection of a void-fill density
5 from a plurality of void-fill densities.
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
7 Appellant’s invention is a void-fill system which includes an input
8 device 98 connected to a logic device 76. An operator may select a void fill
9 density from a plurality of void fill densities (Specification 11). Upon the
10 selection of a void-fill density an input or logic device 76 varies the amount
11 of dunnage material to be dispensed per measured volume of void
12 (Specification 11). For example, if minimal protection is needed a less
13 dunnage is dispensed per unit volume but if maximum protection is needed
14 more dunnage is dispensed per unit volume. (Specification 11).
15 Harding discloses a void-fill system which includes a void volume
16 probe which measures the void volume of a container to determine the
17 volume of padding necessary to fill the container (Harding, col 18, ll. 29-
18 34). The information from the probe is transferred to a logic device 48
19 (Harding, col. 18, ll. 19-21). The logic device 48 determines the amount of
20 pad and length of pad to produce to adequately cushion the container
21 (Harding, col. 18, ll. 10-14). Harding does not include an input device or
22 logic device which enables the selection of a void-fill density from a
23 plurality of void-fill densities. Harding discloses only one void-fill density
24 i.e., the density necessary to fill the container. Harding does not allow the
25 operator to vary the amount of dunnage to fill the container.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013