Appeal No. 2002-0419
Application No. 08/457,732
Appellant argues that the combination of Dlugos and Shavit does not describe or
suggest preparing a shipping request for a parcel and ordering and tracking parcel
deliveries using a system that includes a central computer capable of initiating a parcel
pickup request and a tracking database entry and an intelligent telephone containing a
processor, for receiving and storing a parcel shipping procedure, storing delivery
information as a shipping record of a parcel, and transmitting delivery information to the
central computer for parcel pickup and tracking. (See brief at page 5 et seq.) We
agree with appellant.
While the examiner labors to explain and rationalize (answer at pages 5-44)
what appears to be his gut belief that the claimed invention is not patentable and
obvious over some prior art, and to force the teachings of Shavit and Dlugos into the
metes and bounds of the claimed invention, we find that even if these two teachings are
combined with either of Haddock or Weiss, the combination still does not teach or fairly
suggest the claimed invention.
First the claimed invention requires “a central computer including a tracking
database for a plurality of parcels, and means for receiving a parcel pickup request, said
central computer for downloading a parcel shipping procedure.” (Emphasis added.)
Second, the claimed invention requires “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.” While Shavit teaches the use of a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007