Appeal No. 1996-3281
Application 07/895,467
to sender, column 10, lines 37-40; time of receipt, column 4,
lines 4-6 and 63-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention to have used the Sekiya
mailing device to transmit common types of mail, such as
registered mail. In sending registered mail, a message would
be issued to inform the sender of receipt as disclosed in
Takenouchi, which message includes the receipt/transmission
time. As taught in Takenouchi, when the actual transmission
time was later than the initially designated transmission
time, the receipt thereby indicates the actual time capable of
designation of transmission.
Appellant’s claims 1, 16 and 33 each recite transmission
of the information, followed by, informing the sending party
of a time capable of designation of transmission. This time
capable of transmission is read to mean a report of the actual
time the system had been capable of transmitting, not a future
transmission time. It would be illogical to inform the sender
of a future transmitting time since the message had already
been transmitted.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007