Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
provider (ShopperBox) to reserve in the database the lockers needed for the order”
(Appeal Br. 12-13) (Finding of Fact 19). Therefore, Moreno discloses receiving a
specification of the locker as claimed for at least the reason that Moreno discloses
the service provider receives the locker requirements.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Moreno discloses receiving a
specification of the locker to which the article is to be delivered in as much as
Moreno discloses “that the system allows a user to reserve a locker for delivery of
an article” (Answer 19). The Examiner found that “in receiving the user’s
reservation, the system is receiving a specification of the locker to which the article
is to be delivered” Id. In response, Appellants argue that “while a number of
lockers can be reserved for pick-up, there is no disclosure of a specification of a
locker to which the article is to be delivered” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants further
contend that Moreno discloses “reserving a number of lockers, but, as it is
uncertain into which of the reserved lockers the article will fit, a specific locker is
not specified/identified until after it has been placed in the locker” Id. Again, we
disagree.
Although portions of Moreno may, arguendo, disclose an embodiment
wherein a specific locker is not assigned until delivery of the article, it still remains
that Moreno specifically discloses that the system supports dynamic locker
allocations such that allocation of a locker may occur at the time of order
placement (Finding of Fact 14). Furthermore, Fig. 4 of Moreno clearly discloses
that the service provider assigns a locker to the client (Block 408) and that a
delivery person places the ordered item in the assigned locker after entering an
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013