Appeal No. 2002-2322
Application 09/094,314
There is no teaching within the applied prior art of
incorporating a recipient address within a generated indicium for
a mailpiece. The examiner took Official Notice that it was well
known to incorporate “address data, date or meter data into a
digital proof of postage.” Although there is little doubt that
it was well known to incorporate date and meter data into a
digital proof of postage, there is no evidence that it was well
known to incorporate recipient address data into a digital proof
of postage in a closed system metering device. We agree with
appellants that they have properly challenged the examiner’s
Official Notice with respect to the address data portion of the
examiner’s position. Appellants have consistently asserted that
it was not well known to include the recipient address in a
digital proof of postage in a closed metering system.
Since the examiner’s taking of Official Notice has been
properly challenged by appellants, and since the record before us
does not otherwise support the examiner’s finding with respect to
the taking of Official Notice, we find that the examiner has
failed to find every feature of the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-7.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007