Appeal No. 2003-1052
Application 09/222,644
The significance of an accurate prior art definition of the
term "closed system" is critical to our determination to reverse
the rejection of the claims on appeal. The preamble of
independent claim 1 requires a "closed system metering device"
whereas the body of claim 1 in its first clause recites a "closed
system postal meter." The entire first clause requires "coupling
a scanning device to a closed system postal meter." Although the
examiner's remarks in the answer rightly indicate there is an
apparent "disconnect" between the postage meter with the scanning
device in this claim and the further recited scanning, deter-
mining, and printing functions, the examiner also characterizes
the claim as indicating that the closed system postal meter is
merely an "ornamental" recitation.
In response, in the paragraph bridging pages 1-2 of the
reply brief, appellants state:
Page 6, first paragraph of the Examiner's Answer
contends that the meter, as the claims are written,
is purely ornamental and its presence has no bearing
on the implementation of the method. Appellants
respectfully disagree. Claim 1 includes the
limitations of determining a postal code corresponding
to the recipient address and printing the postal code
on the mailpiece. Each of these steps is performed by
the closed system postage meter (Specification, page 6,
lines 3-13; Fig. 2; page 8, line 18 to page 3, line 4).
Accordingly, the closed system postage meter affects
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007