onecle

Ex Parte DaCunha - Page 1



                            This opinion is not binding precedent of the Board.                              
                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                            
                                               ____________                                                  
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                              
                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                               ____________                                                  
                                     Ex parte PITNEY BOWES, INC.                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-2637                                                
                                          Application 10/741,269                                             
                                          Technology Center 1700                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                          Decided: July 10, 2007                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON, and ROMULO H.                                           
                DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                      
                TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                        

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      This appeal relates to methods for creating folded, scented inserts for                
                mail items created in a high-speed mail-processing system.  The examiner                     
                rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as having been obvious.  The                     
                appellant (Pitney Bowes) seeks review of the rejection.  We affirm.                          
                      First, the claim scope and meaning of contested limitations of claims                  
                must be established.1  Next, the scope and content of the prior art must be                  
                                                                                                            
                1 Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1335-36, 79 USPQ2d                      
                1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (scope and meaning); Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v.                  



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013