Appeal No. 2002-0419
Application No. 08/457,732
procedure which is then used to receive the delivery information and transmit the
delivery information as a shipping record back to the central computer. Therefore, even
if we assume that the teachings of the references were properly combinable, the
combination would not teach or fairly suggest the invention as recited in independent
claim 41.
With respect to independent claim 40, claim 40 contains similar limitations to
independent claim 1. Specifically, independent claim 40 recites a “means for receiving
a parcel pickup request” or a step at an intelligent terminal of “transmitting said shipping
record of said parcel to said central computer to said parcel pickup request receiving
means . . .” which are not taught by the above combination and the addition of the
teachings of Balga does not remedy the noted deficiency. Therefore, even if we
assume that the teachings of the references were properly combinable, the combination
would not teach or fairly suggest the invention as recited in independent claim 40.
Independent claim 40 contains additional limitations to displaying of a recipient
list on the screen when preparing said parcel for shipping and disabling non-selected
features. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to receive and store recipient lists and to display them on the screen with
the motivation of providing an indication of the data stored and processed by the
system. Again, the examiner seems to misinterpret the language of independent claim
40. The language of claim 40 requires that the recipient list is received from the central
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007