Appeal 2007-0933 Page 2
Application 10/310,733
We AFFIRM.
The Brief1 argues the claims as a group. Pursuant to the rules, the Board
selects representative claim 1 to decide the appeal with respect to claims 1-6. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A mail processing machine comprising
a recto-verso printer adapted to receive data to be printed and to
produce printed documents based on said data,
said documents being designed to be enclosed and franked,
wherein the printer is capable of recto-verso printing the
documents and in that the processing machine comprises:
means for determining if a value related to the weight of said
documents exceeds postal threshold; and
means upstream of the printer to select the process for franking
the cover by recto-verso printing the documents at will based upon the
threshold determination.
The Examiner has finally rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bresnan (U.S. Patent no. 5,873,073) in view of Bucci
(U.S. Patent No. 5,655,089).
A. Issue
Appellant contends that the cited art combination would not have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention, the crux of the invention being to
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed 27
February 2006) and the Examiner's Answer (“Answer,” mailed 29 March 2006).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013