Appeal 2007-3141
Application 10/696,894
1 Claim 79 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsieh,
2 Pusic, and Tateno.
3 ISSUES
4 Thus, the issues pertinent to this appeal are
5 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
6 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 77 and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
7 unpatentable over Hsieh and Pusic.
8 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
9 Examiner erred in rejecting claim 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
10 unpatentable over Hsieh, Pusic, and Tateno.
11 The pertinent issue turns on whether Hsieh and Pusic suggest (1) displaying at
12 least two selectable delivery options with costs and (2) computing a cost for
13 mailing a parcel or envelope to a destination as a function of weight and a selected
14 delivery option.
15 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
16 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported
17 by a preponderance of the evidence.
18 Claim Construction
19 01. Claim 77 contains the limitation that a cost for mailing a parcel or
20 envelope to a destination is a function of a weight and a selected delivery
21 option.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013