Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Kuebert in view of Lynt, Srinivasan, and Busch. The
Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
September 14, 2006), and the Answer (mailed December 1, 2006) for the
respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1 through 11, 15 through 16, 19 through 21, and
23 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant asserts that the combination of the references does not teach
the claimed step of charging the recipient for delivering the mail in the
manner specified by the recipient to the carrier. (Br. 12). Appellant also
argues that the cited patents do not teach that the telephone number of the
recipient and the translated image alphanumerics are used to inform the
recipient of the expected delivery of the deposited mail via a tactile
communications device. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
explained why the skilled artisan would make the combination.
In response to the Appellant’s first point, the Examiner finds that
Kuebert teaches that the recipient communicates instructions to the carrier,
directed to a new delivery point. (Answer 8). Further, the Examiner states:
As per "charging the recipient" per se, Srinivasan was applied for this
feature. Specifically, Srinivasan teaches said method and system for
adaptable message delivery, wherein the term ''subscriber'' suggests
charging the recipient for delivering mail to the recipient (column 2,
lines 37-58). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the
term subscription as: "an arrangement for providing, receiving, or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013