Appeal No. 2002-2322
Application 09/094,314
With respect to independent claim 8, it recites
limitations similar to claim 1. Claim 8 recites that the
generating means generates an indicium using the scanned
information including the recipient address. Therefore, claim 8
requires that the recipient address information be obtained by
the scanning means. Claim 8 also recites that the indicium is
generated using the recipient address. Therefore, we find that
claim 8, like claim 1, also requires that an indicium be
generated which incorporates the recipient address information
therein. As discussed above, this record does not support the
finding that it was well known to incorporate recipient address
information in a digital proof of postage for a closed system
postage metering device. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8-12 for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007