Appeal No. 1999-1584
Application No. 08/579,242
then placed on the article to be mailed, i.e., an envelope.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by the examiner that the
combination of Watson and Perry meets the claimed limitations
of claim l.
We also agree with the appellant’s position regarding the
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention using Perry
to modify Watson. See brief at page 15. We note that there
is no teaching in either Perry or Watson where a mail article
is required to be delivered by special delivery and,
therefore, there would be no need to have a special form to
accomplish the special delivery of a mail article in either
system.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
over Watson and Perry.
The other two independent claims, namely, claims 10 and
15, also each contain limitations corresponding to the
limitations discussed in regard to claim 1. For the same
rationale, we do not sustain the rejection of the independent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007