Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
access code (Blocks 418 and 424) (Finding of Fact 14 and 18). Accordingly, the
delivery person has to receive information identifying the assigned locker in order
to place the article therein (Finding of Fact 16-18). As such, we find Appellants’
argument regarding receiving a specification of the locker unpersuasive.
Appellants further contend that Moreno “fails to teach or suggest outputting
delivery request data including article identification information identifying said
article and locker information indicating said locker” because Moreno “merely
assigns or allocates the lockers” (Appeal Br. 13). Moreno discloses that the service
provider assigns/reserves the locker(s) which meet the customer’s requirements
and determines a resident PIN number for accessing the assigned lockers (Finding
of Fact 20). Then the service provider provides this information to the kiosk or
controller associated with the lockers (Finding of Fact 20). The kiosk or controller
receives the PIN number and sets the entry number for access to the assigned
lockers, i.e., 12, 21, and 23 (Finding of Fact 21). Accordingly, Moreno discloses
outputting locker information indicating said locker as claimed.
Appellants further contend that Maloney fails to overcome Moreno’s failure
to teach or suggest sensing a physical parameter of the article as recited in claim 1
because the Examiner failed to “provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to modify” Moreno in view of Maloney (Appeal
Br. 14). More specifically, Appellants contend that a proper combination of
Moreno and Maloney requires “motivation or rationale to modify MORENO to
include a weighing device to confirm the weight of the delivered goods” (Appeal
Br. 15). We agree, as discussed infra, in order to support a rejection based on
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013