Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
system can change the delivery point of the e-mail. (Fact 1). We consider it
to be a well known principle that services are paid for by the recipient of the
service. The Examiner has relied upon Srinivasan as evidence that it is
known that users of a service pay for the service. We concur with the
Examiner’s finding. (Fact 9). While Srinivasan is directed toward paying
for forwarding of a different type of mail message (Fact 10), it nonetheless
teaches that the user is a subscriber. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the
combination of the references teaches charging the recipient for delivering
the mail in the manner specified by the recipient to the carrier.
Similarly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the cited patents teach utilizing the telephone
number of the recipient and the translated image alphanumerics to inform
the recipient of the expected delivery of the deposited mail via a tactile
communications device. Kuebert teaches that the system captures the
address of the recipient and sender as an image and processes the image to
alphanumerics. (Fact 2). Performing an OCR on an image is converting the
image to alphanumerics. Further, Kuebert teaches that the address is used
with a database to determine the recipient’s telephone number, and the user
is notified by telephone. (Facts 3 through 5). Lynt teaches a tactile
communication device which allows telephone communications to be
converted into tactile presentation. (Fact 7). Thus, we concur with the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of the references teaches utilizing
the telephone number of the recipient and the translated image
alphanumerics to inform the recipient of the expected delivery of the
deposited mail via a tactile communications device.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013