Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
Appellants argue claims 12-14 as a group (Appeal Br. 23-26). Although
Appellants list elements of dependent claims 13 and 14 on pages 25-26 of the
Brief, Appellants do not provide any argument as to why the cited art does not
teach or suggest the listed elements. In particular, Appellants fail to specifically
rebut the Examiner’s findings of fact as to the scope and content of the prior art
and the determination of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006). As such,
we select claim 12 as the representative claim, and the remaining claims 13 and 14
stand or fall together with claim 12.
Appellants contend that neither Moreno nor Ogilvie disclose or suggest “a
lock control module for controlling locking and unlocking of a specified locker to
which an article is to be delivered” (Appeal Br. 23). More specifically, Appellants
argue that although “MORENO appears to discloses [sic] the allocation of the
lockers, it is not apparent that the same system controls the locking and unlocking
of the locker” Id. We disagree.
Moreno discloses that after the deliverer places the ordered items into the
assigned lockers, the kiosk/controller sends notification to the IR servers that the
delivery has been made (Finding of Fact 22). The IR servers then tell the
kiosk/controller to set the access PIN number for the assigned lockers to the
customer’s PIN # (Finding of Fact 23). Accordingly, it is the IR servers (i.e., the
service provider) that assign the lockers and the deliverer and customer access
PINs, and output the information to the locker controller. Therefore, contrary to
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013