Appeal No. 2002-2258
Application No. 09/134,977
appeal. Appellant’s mention of the teachings at columns 8 and 10
of Baker at page 7 of the principal brief on appeal is well-
taken. It is clear from these discussions alone that Baker does
not contemplate the physical or tangible use of a control
document as known in the art. The user generates, through the
use of the control application program in Baker, data structures
which are utilized for the actual configuration of the mailpiece
discussed. The control architecture, control systems and data
structures in Baker appear to us to be what the examiner regards
as an electronic document. Even though Baker’s discussion of
Figures 10G and 10H at the top of column 15 relating to error
determinations and recovery states, and further as to the
statement at lines 14 and 15 that “the data structure defining
the configuration for the mail run is reset . . .”, this
resetting or apparent regeneration of a physical control document
(i.e., the data structure) is not anywhere taught in Baker to be
related to a prior art control documents discussed at column 2.
In other words, the artisan within 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35
U.S.C. § 103 would not, in our view, have considered what the
examiner considers to be an electronic control document to be a
control document that is reset or regenerated in accordance with
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007