Appeal 2007-1715 Page 18
Application 10/033,224
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to determine the weight of the
packing material surrounding an article in a container by subtracting the volume of
the article from the volume of the container and multiplying the result by the
density of the packing material.
D. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claim over the prior art.
Claim 16
Claim 16 reads as follows:
16. The method claimed in claim 13, further including the steps of:
comparing the stored weight for shipping the article and container in
the completed container database with the weight determined by the carrier
to ship the container; and
querying the manufacturer of the articles and containers concerning
their actual weight if the compared total weights are not the same.
A. Issue
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has not cited any art in the context of
the claimed invention that shows that it would be obvious to: isolate the containers
that do not have the proper postage [see claim 13 on which claim 16 depends],
comparing the stored weight for shipping the article and container in the completed
container database with the weight determined by the carrier to ship the container;
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013