Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
2. Claims 7-10 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno and Ogilvie.
3. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moreno, Ogilvie, and Hall.
4. Claims 15-18 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie, and Stephens.
5. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moreno, Ogilvie, Stephens, and Kakuta.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that (1) “there is no teaching or suggestion in
MORENO, or any other document of record, of receiving a specification of the
locker to which the article is to be delivered” (Appeal Br. 12), and (2) the applied
combination fails to disclose or suggest sensing a physical parameter of an article
to determine whether the article has been delivered because “MALONEY teaches
identifying the articles, not determining the presence of the article, since the article
is returned when the measured weight is contrary to the expected weight” (Appeal
Br. 15). The Examiner held that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Maloney into the invention of
Moreno “in order to ensure that a proper quantity of goods had been placed in the
storage cabinet, as taught by Maloney” (Answer 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013