Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
placed in the storage device” as taught by Ogilvie in order “to prevent a user from
prematurely accessing the locker” (Answer 7). Therefore, the Examiner has not
relied on Ogilvie for any teaching of an alarm system, but rather for its teaching of
setting an access password after an article has been delivered. As such, we find
Appellants’ argument regarding the “alarm” of Ogilvie unpersuasive.
For the reasons presented supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-6 and 21-23 as unpatentable over Moreno, Maloney, and Ogilvie.
Rejection of claims 7-10 and 12-14 as unpatentable over Moreno and Ogilvie
Appellants separately argue independent claim 7 (Appeal Br. 20-21). More
specifically, Appellants contend that Moreno fails to teach or suggest “a receipt
setting module for receiving a specification of the locker to which the article is to
be delivered” or “a delivery information issuance module for outputting locker
identification information and article identification information” because Moreno
merely discloses assigning or allocating lockers to a potential delivery and storing
the locker allocation data in a database (Appeal Br. 21). We disagree.
As noted by Appellants, Moreno discloses that once the order size, locker
requirements and estimated time of delivery are determined (i.e., a specification of
the locker), the information is forwarded to the service provider (Finding of Fact
19). The service provider then reserves/assigns lockers, e.g., lockers 12, 21, and
23, based on the received locker specification, and assigns a unique delivery PIN
number to the order (Finding of Fact 20). This information, i.e., the delivery PIN
and assigned locker information is then forwarded to the vendor and the
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013