Appeal No. 1997-0012
Application No. 08/174,901
recognized equivalent of the Radl et al. teaching [i.e.,
eight-connectedness criteria],” and offers Pizano as an
example of an art-recognized equivalent. The examiner has
concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the claimed steps in
place of the steps taught by Radl et al. since they are art
recognized equivalents, and since the claimed steps are old
and well known in the art” (Answer, page 5), and that “the
replacement of Radl’s technique with Pizano’s would merely
constitute a substitution of art recognized equivalents”
(Answer, page 10).
The examiner has further stated that Radl “fails to
disclose identifying the block as a particular one of a
plurality of blocks” (Answer, page 6). Citing Kizu as an
example of the use of a plurality of blocks on mailpieces, the
examiner has determined that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use Radl et al. technique
to identify other blocks on the mailpiece, if other blocks
were desired to be identified. The need for locating various
blocks on a mailpiece is well established in the field.”
(Answer, page 6).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007