Appeal 2007-1715 Page 5
Application 10/033,224
the package and, therefore, the cost of mailing the package.” Br. 17. Appellant
further argues that
Neither Nicholls nor Godin, taken separately or together, discloses or
anticipates the system and method claimed by Appellant in claims 3-17,
namely, a system and method of returning a weight from a weight field of a
database wherein said database has at least one data field for storing a set of
data relative to a corresponding article, packing material, and container, and
wherein said set of data comprises at least said weight field.
Br. 17. Accordingly, Appellant contends that the prior art does not disclose steps
(c)-(e) of claim 3 and therefore contends that one of ordinary skill in the art given
Godin would not have been led to modify the Nicholls method to include claim
steps (c)-(e). Br. 17.
The issue is whether the evidence would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. More specifically, the issue is whether one of ordinary skill in the art
given Godin would have been led to modify the Nicholls method to include claim
steps (c)-(e).
B. Facts
The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. The claims are directed to a method involving a cost determining routine in a
shipping system application and a database, the method comprising initiating the
routine (step (a)), entering a description of an article, the material packing it, and
the container holding it, in a data field in the routine (step (b)), transmitting a query
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013