Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
number, which are analogous to the serial number and factory
number in Dietrich. Kim teaches determining whether the indicia
is valid, although this teaching is implicit in the purpose of
the invention of Dietrich . Among other things, determining
whether the indicia is valid suggests determining whether or not
the postage meter system (which includes a printer) is recognized
by the Postal Service. Thus, we conclude that step b) would have
been obvious over Kim. Claim 25 does not require a printer
separate from a computer and PSD. Claim 25 does not recite that
the purpose of determining whether a printer is recognized is
concerned with print quality, as argued, or is intended to
prevent non-approved printers from being used, as argued. Thus,
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. The rejection of
claims 25-27 and 30 is sustained.
Although Appellant merely mentions the limitations of
claim 28, which is not considered an argument as to error in the
Examiner's rejection as required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv),
since claim 28 recites the same limitation found in claim 5, we
exercise our discretion and reverse the rejection of claim 28 for
the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 5.
Claims 19-21 ) Dietrich, Bruns, Billington, and Chapman
Claim 19 recites first means for reading the recorded
information about the machine that recorded the indicia, second
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007