Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
kiosk/controller associated with the assigned lockers (Finding of Fact 20).
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ contention, Moreno teaches more than merely
assigning lockers to a potential delivery and storing the information in the
database.
Appellants argue claims 8-10 as a group (Appeal Br. 21-25). Although
Appellants list elements of dependent claims 9 and 10 on pages 24-25 of the Brief,
Appellants do not provide any argument as to why the cited art does not teach or
suggest the listed elements. In particular, Appellants fail to specifically rebut the
Examiner’s findings of fact as to the scope and content of the prior art and the
determination of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006). As such, we
select claim 8 as the representative claim, and the remaining claims 9 and 10 stand
or fall together with claim 8.
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. 21-22). We disagree for the
same reasons presented supra with respect to claim 7. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10 as unpatentable over Moreno and Ogilvie.
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013