Appeal No. 2002-2258
Application No. 09/134,977
rejection, claims 15, 19 and 21 through 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Baker in view of
Schneiderhan.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse all rejections of the claims on appeal.
At the outset, we observe that the subject matter the
examiner sets forth in the statements of the rejections beginning
at page 3 of the answer does not comport with the actual subject
matter of the presently identified claims on appeal.
Nevertheless, considering the five basic rejections set forth
earlier, we are mindful of the examiner’s positions with respect
to each feature actually recited in the claims on appeal.
Each claim on appeal relates to so-called “control
documents” and the regeneration of them. Each claim also relates
to “mailpieces” which are defined at specification, page 1,
lines 11 and 12 to mean “items intended to be delivered by a
postal service or private courier service.” Appellant’s prior
art Figure 1, as described at the middle of the specification
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007