Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
Cordery discloses recording indicia graphics indicating the
manufacturer, such as the eagle design in figure 2 (col. 6,
lines 9-11). Cordery also discloses recording a Vendor
Identification Code 208 (manufacturer) and a Secure Portable
Storage Device (SPSD) Identification (serial number) in a
vicinity of the postal indicia (figure 2; col. 6, lines 35-40).
While the manufacturer and serial number in Cordery are of the
SPSD, not the printer, Cordery does teach recording the
manufacturer. Dietrich teaches recording the serial number or
factory number information about the postal metering system,
which includes a printer (col. 1, lines 38-39). In our opinion,
the serial number or factory number in Dietrich must inherently
identify the manufacturer because the USPS needs to be able to
trace a machine back to a particular manufacturer, so claim 3
would have been obvious over Dietrich alone. However, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to record the
postal metering system machine manufacturer in view of Cordery.
The rejection of claim 3 is sustained.
Claim 4 ) Dietrich, Bruns, Cordery, and either Johnsen or
Schwartz
Claim 4 recites that the recorded information about the
printer is the manufacturer and model number. The Examiner finds
that these limitations are not taught by Dietrich. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to record the
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007