Appeal No. 1998-0646
Application No. 08/485,269
and to receive data relating to shipping rates from said remote computer and for storing
said received data in said memory for storing data” and that Wright does not maintain data
in the internal memory of the scale system including “data relating to shipping rates and
data relating to transaction records.” We agree with appellants that Wright does not teach
or suggest the storage of shipping rates in an internal memory of the scale. Wright merely
teaches the storage of the rates on the memory card or input of the shipping rate by the
user. Wright further does not teach or suggest maintaining transaction records in the
internal memory as set forth in the language of claim 201. Wright teaches that the record
of the transaction or debit is sent to the user card where it is recorded to debit the value of
the postage used for the package.
Appellants argue the “transaction records” of the claimed invention are different
from the transaction records on the user card of Wright wherein they are related to
individual shipping transactions which “might include information such as the package’s
weight, size and shipping destination, the day and time of shipping, the cost and type of
shipping and the customer for whom the package was shipped.“ (See brief at page 26.)
Appellants’ representative was questioned at the hearing concerning the support of the
above interpretation of the “transaction record.” Appellants’ representative repeatedly
referenced only page 48 of appellants’ specification of support of the storage of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007