Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
As such, we select claim 16 as the representative claim, and the remaining claims
15, 17, 18, and 24-26 stand or fall together with claim 16.
Appellants contend that Moreno fails to teach or suggest “a receipt setting
module for receiving a request for delivery of an article by receiving specification
of a locker to which an article is to be delivered and customer identification
information identifying a customer provided from a terminal of said customer over
a network” or “a delivery information issuance module for outputting locker
identification information identifying said locker and article identification
information identifying said article…and for outputting a delivery password for
locking said locker” because Moreno merely discloses assigning or allocating
lockers to a potential delivery and storing the locker allocation data in a database
(Appeal Br. 29-30). 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
kiosk/controller associated with the assigned lockers (Finding of Fact 20).
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ contention, Moreno teaches more than merely
assigning lockers and storing the information in the database. As such, we sustain
24
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013