Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 15
We turn next to claim 23. The examiner's position (answer,
page 7) is to the effect that Salgado's disclosure of setting
levels of exclusivity of the bins is a disclosure of the setting
of different priorities for different bins. Appellants assert
(brief, page 11) that the randomly selected portions of Salgado
do not show or suggest the combination set forth in claim 23.
However, appellants do not set forth any limitations of the claim
that they consider to not be met by the teachings of Mandel and
Salgado. In the reply brief,(page 8) appellants assert that the
examiner's reliance on bin 2 of Salgado as being in both groups
of bins is incorrect because "they are not a first and second set
of bins as defined in the present specification."
Although we agree with appellants that the examiner is
incorrect in placing bin 2 in both sets of bins, we find that the
prior art meets the limitations of claim 23, for the reasons
which follow.
From our review of Mandel, we additionally find (col. 9,
lines 54-57) that adjacent mailbox bins may be selected and used
for job overflow, if available. Mandel additionally discloses
that plural bin units may be serially ganged. From the
disclosure of selecting adjacent mailboxes for overflow, and that
plural mailbox units may be serially ganged, we find that Mandel
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007