Appeal 2007-1799
Application 10/036,991
As the Examiner explains, “[i]t would have been well within the
purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a structure such as that
taught in Stirling et al., for the sanitation station in Call et al., because it
would provide for effective means to retrofit existing mail handling
conveyances to provide effective decontamination without requiring user
interaction” (Answer 4). We agree.
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397
(2007). For the reasons discussed above, integrating Stirling’s sanitizer
module into Call’s containment chamber will result in the sanitizer module
being positioned adjacent to the filtered transition area.
On reflection, we find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. For their part, Appellants assert that the combination of Call
and Stirling fails to teach the structural limitations of the sanitizer module
set forth in claim 4 (Br. 15). For the foregoing reasons, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ assertion. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Call and Stirling. Claims 5-12 fall together with claim 4.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is drawn to a system for sorting and sanitizing incoming
mailpieces. The system of claim 13 comprises 4 elements:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013