Appeal No. 2002-2322
Application 09/094,314
references of the step of combining the recipient address with
other information relating to the postage payment for the
mailpiece to obtain postal data relating to the mailpiece, and
using the postal data to generate an indicium for the mailpiece,
the indicium including cryptographic evidencing of postage
payment as set forth in claim 1. Appellants also argue that the
operations described in Kubatzki do not constitute value-added
services as claimed, and there is no accounting related to
desired value-added services. Appellants argue that the applied
references do not teach the step of adding graphical
representation of the desired value-added services to the general
indicium to generate a value-added indicium as claimed [brief,
pages 9-16].
The examiner responds that incorporating postage data
such as address data, date or meter data into a digital proof of
postage is admitted prior art because appellants failed to
challenge the examiner’s taking of Official Notice of this fact.
The examiner also asserts that the steps of claim 1 are not
connected and do not require that the address information come
from the scanning step. The examiner also responds that
appellants are attempting to limit the meaning of “value-added
services” by incorporating limitations from the specification
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007