Appeal No. 1999-0709 Page 4
Application No. 08/400,335
force the print system support 32 past the position shown in Figure 9 in which a release lever
44 pivotally attached thereto and biased to the left by a spring 50 contacts the upper surface of
a detent block 28. If, on the other hand, the postage balance is sufficient, and if a letter is
detected in the letter receiving slot 20, the microcomputer generates a control signal to energize
a solenoid 42 to draw the release lever 44 to the right against the force of the spring 50, so that
the release lever 44 clears the detent block 28, as shown in Figure 10. Under these
circumstances, continued downward pressure on the cover member 38 forces the printing
wheels into the letter receiving slot to print postage on the face of the letter in that slot (column
7, lines 37-65).
The examiner concedes that Hubbard lacks "a rotor rotatable relative to the main body
for imprinting postage indicia on a mail piece through rotation thereof" as required by each of
the appellants' independent claims 15, 22 and 23. However, the examiner contends that
[ i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to provide the postage meter of Hubbard with the rotating
print drum and necessary supporting structure as taught by Miller so as to
enhance the printing efficiency of the postage meter. The mere application of
one type of print drum over another based upon their well known properties and
intended use by those having ordinary skill in the art would involve no
unobviousness [answer, page 4].
The test of obviousness is "what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). However, obviousness "cannot be established by combining the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007