Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
Appellants also 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 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). We disagree.
Maloney teaches verifying, using for example a scale, that the correct object
is actually contained within the designated container, both when the object is
checked out and when it is checked back in (Finding of Fact 27). If a discrepancy
is noted between the measured weight and expected weight of an article, then
alarms are triggered and appropriate action is taken, for example, reporting it to
security personnel (Finding of Fact 29). Accordingly, if there is no article present,
there is necessarily a discrepancy in the measured weight and the expected weight
resulting in an appropriate action. As a result, the system of Maloney is able to
determine not only if an article is present, but also if the article is the expected
article. The fact that the system of Maloney is capable of identifying objects, does
not change the fact that it is also capable of detecting the presence, or lack thereof,
of an article. As such, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
Finally, Appellants contend “it would not have been obvious to one
ordinarily skilled in the art to utilize the alarm of OGILVIE, since there is no
teaching or suggestion for triggering such an alarm in the art of record” (Appeal
Br. 15). The Examiner held it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the system of Moreno to incorporate “a lockable storage device
that sets a password with a central controller when the goods (i.e., article) are
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013