Appeal 2007-3141
Application 10/696,894
1 The Examiner responded that the cost in claim 77 is only a function of weight
2 and delivery option (Answer 5:Bottom ¶ - 6).
3 The issue before us is whether the combined teachings of Hsieh and Pusic
4 suggested different delivery options and a cost to a destination whose pricing may
5 depend on the delivery option and whether one of ordinary skill would have
6 combined their teachings.
7 We initially take up the claim construction issue as to whether the cost in claim
8 77 is a function of destination as well as weight and delivery option. Claim 77
9 contains the limitation that a cost for mailing a parcel or envelope to a destination
10 is a function of a weight and a selected delivery option (FF 01). The phrase “to
11 said destination” modifies cost and is therefore one of the variables. However, the
12 phrase “function” modifies “cost,” not “destination” because the phrase “to a
13 destination” is itself a modifier of cost and a destination has no weight (FF 02).
14 Thus it is not necessary that the invention “calculate the mailing cost of different
15 destinations for each selected delivery option” as argued (Appeal Br. 7:Second full
16 ¶).
17 Hsieh describes a postal calculation based on weight and mailing service (FF
18 05). A mailing service is a delivery option, and therefore Hsieh describes two of
19 the three variables for postal cost.
20 Pusic describes a postal calculation based on weight and destination, along
21 with other variables, including special request data (FF 09). One of ordinary skill
22 in the postal fee setting art would consider a delivery option to be a predictable
23 member of the set of special request data described by Pusic. Thus, Pusic alone
24 would suggest computing a postal cost based on weight, destination, and delivery
25 option.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013