Appeal No. 2002-0419
Application No. 08/457,732
(E) storing said delivery information as a shipping
record of said parcel; and
(F) transmitting said shipping record of said parcel
to said parcel pickup request receiving means and to said tracking database, in
response to receiving said delivery information.
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Shavit et al. (Shavit) 4,799,156 Jan. 17, 1989
Dlugos, Sr. et al. (Dlugos) 5,153,842 Oct. 06, 1992
Weiss et al. (Weiss) 5,195,130 Mar. 16, 1993
Balga, Jr. et al. (Balga) 5,278,947 Jan. 11, 1994
Haddock et al. (Haddock) 5,657,378 Aug. 12, 1997
(Filed Apr. 11, 1995)
Claims 2, 3, 7-13, 16-21, 23, 24, 28-31, 33, and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Dlugos further in view of
(Haddock or Weiss). Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shavit in view of Dlugos and (Haddock or Weiss) further in view of
Balga.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 37, mailed Sep. 28, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 36, filed Jul. 6, 2001) and reply brief
(Paper No. 38, filed Nov. 28, 2001) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007