Appeal No. 96-1032
Application 08/197,443
12 a bar code representing the zip code, but that would be simply
a duplication of the information provided by markings 18, and
would not meet the terms of the claim.
On page 5 of the answer, the examiner concludes that the
recitation “mail-sorting equipment . . . predetermined code
field” in the last four lines of claim 23 is “just an intended
use which is rendered obvious by the teachings of the applied
references,” but we fail to see where such use is disclosed or
taught by any of the references.
The examiner concludes that (answer, page 6):
[W]ith the known and existing mail sorting
equipment having the built-in bar code reading
capabilities for switching to a manually-
written code reading mode and in view of the
teachings of the applied prior art references,
to merely provide a mail piece with a bar code
that would make use the built-in capabilities
of the known mail sorting equipment would have
been most obvious to those having ordinary
skill in the art.
We disagree with this conclusion, because we find no disclosure
in either Gunn or Pusic of any mail sorting equipment having
“built-in bar code reading capabilities for switching to a
manually-written code reading mode.” The Gunn apparatus, in
particular, has no such switching ability, but determines the zip
code solely by reading the manually-applied markings 18.
Accordingly, we will not sustain rejection (1).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007