Appeal 2007-1799
Application 10/036,991
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Call.
2. Claims 4-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Call and Stirling.
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Anticipation:
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Call. Appellants do not separately argue the claims.
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to representative independent claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 will stand or fall together with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 1 is drawn to a system for sanitizing mailpieces. The system
comprises four elements:
1. A component for singulating and feeding a mailpiece along a feed
path of the system;
2. A sanitizer module for sanitizing the mailpiece positioned
downstream of the component for singulating and feeding the mailpiece;
3. A filtered transition area downstream of the sanitizer module; and
4. An output bin module for receiving a mailpiece after the mailpiece
has been sanitized.
The Examiner finds that Call teaches a system for sorting and
sanitizing mail pieces wherein the mail is singulated and fed via a conveyor
through a detection station and then through a sanitation section (Answer 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013