Appeal 2007-0678
Application 09/818,792
1 REFERENCES
2
3 The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
4
5 Higgins US 5,754,671 May 19, 1998
6
7 Smith (Smith ‘808) US 2002/0042808 A1 Apr. 11, 2002
8 (effectively filed Sep. 29, 2000)
9
10 Smith (Smith ‘306) US 2002/0095306 A1 Jul. 18, 2002
11 (effectively filed Sep. 29, 2000)
12
13 REJECTION AT ISSUE
14 Claims 1 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
15 unpatentable over Smith (‘306 or ‘808) in view of Higgins. The Examiner’s
16 rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer. Throughout the
17 opinion we make reference to the Brief (filed May 10, 2006), and the
18 Answer (mailed July 7, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
19 ISSUES
20 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
21 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) is in error. Appellants argue on page 18 of the
22 brief:
23 Appellants do not claim a method in which a sender printed personal
24 ID code is added to each mailpiece, and the ID code is captured by the
25 post. Appellants claim a method in which the carrier captures the
26 name and physical address of the recipient and sender in the form of
27 an image and the translation by a data center of the name and physical
28 address of the recipient into an e-mail address.
29
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013