Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
Rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 22. Claim 22 is dependent upon claim 1 which recites “using the
telephone number … to inform the recipient of the expected delivery of the
deposited mail via a tactile communication device.” Claim 22 further
modifies claim 1 by reciting that “the recipient is notified via television of
the availability of the deposited mail.” While we agree Busch teaches using
television to notify users (Fact 14), we do not find that Busch teaches that
the television is a tactile communication device or in addition to a tactile
communication device.1 As we do not find that the references of record
teach or suggest this limitation, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim
22.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(B).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) states:
(b) Should the Board have knowledge of any grounds not involved in
the appeal for rejecting any pending claim, it may include in its
opinion a statement to that effect with its reasons for so holding,
which statement constitutes a new ground of rejection of the claim. A
new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
considered final for judicial review.
1 As discussed infra we find that claim 22 is ambiguous as to whether a
television is a tactile communication device or is used in addition to a tactile
communication device. Further, we do not find that Appellant’s disclosure
provides an enabling disclosure of how a television is used as a tactile
communication device.
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013