Appeal No. 1997-0012
Application No. 08/174,901
for Radl’s procedure, which cancels out address text
information (e.g., address characters and contents) and
locates the address labels and apertures in order to arrive at
the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1. It follows that we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 5,
which directly or indirectly depend from claim 1.
As to claims 6 through 10, the examiner has stated that
they “recite a method which corresponds to apparatus claims 1-
5, and therefore arguments analogous to those applied above to
claims 1-5 are applicable to claims 6-10” (Answer, page 8).
As a result, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 6 through 10.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007