Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
incorrect printers, defective printers, or improper envelopes,
and that this problem may be greatly reduced by the recording of
printing parameters of a printer that recorded an IBI (Br12). It
is argued that the claimed invention will save the consumer and
the USPS money by informing them of the manner that the postal
indicia was produced and this will reduce the number of
unreadable indicia that are produced (Br13-14).
IBIP teaches recording indicia information as IBI. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to record the
postal indicia of Dietrich as IBI if that was a recognized
standard for indicia. Claim 2 requires no more than this. The
additional identification characteristic in Dietrich could still
be printed as an open imprint as part of the final printing
pattern. Claim 2 does not recite any specific parameters
relating to the process of printing the indicia and, so,
Appellant's arguments about the disclosed invention are not
commensurate in scope with the claim language. Accordingly,
Appellant has failed to show error in the rejection. The
rejection of claim 2 is sustained.
Claim 3 ) Dietrich, Bruns, and Cordery
Claim 3 recites that the recorded information about the
printer is the manufacturer of the machine used to print the
indicia. The Examiner finds that this limitation is not taught
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007