Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Johnsen for
solutions to postage systems or how Johnsen suggests modifying
Dietrich to arrive at the claimed invention. Nevertheless, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
serial number or factory number in Dietrich must identify
everything needed by the USPS to be able to trace a machine back
to a particular manufacturer, including manufacturer, model
number, etc. Therefore, we conclude that it would have been
obvious to provide information about the manufacturer and model
number of the postal metering system in Dietrich, which includes
a printer (col. 1, lines 38-39). The rejection of claim 4 is
sustained.
Claim 5 ) Dietrich, Bruns, Cordery, Kipphan, and either Johnsen
or Schwartz
Claim 5 recites that the recorded information about the
printer is the manufacturer, the model number, and the printer
settings used to print the indicia. The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to record the manufacturer and model
number in Dietrich in view of Cordery and either Johnsen or
Schwartz for the reasons stated with respect to claim 4 (EA11).
The Examiner finds that Kipphan discloses a method of assigning
particular printer settings with the corresponding printer
(EA11). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify Dietrich in view of Kipphan to include printer settings
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007