Appeal 2007-0678
Application 09/818,792
1 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper and states on page
2 6 of the Answer:
3 Smith et al. does include the essential method steps of capturing',
4 transmitting', translating', and notifying to enable a recipient to inform
5 a carrier of the manner in which the recipient wants some or all of
6 their mail. Furthermore, the appellant never expressly claims a
7 particular approach (e.g. using the user ID or not requiring the ID) to
8 capture the mail piece to patentably distinguish from the prior art.
9 Accordingly, the difference between the appellant's invention and
10 Smith et al, would be obvious.
11
12 Thus, the contentions present us with two issues a) is the scope of
13 claim 1 limited to using a particular ID code and if so b) does Smith teach or
14 suggest the claimed ID code.
15 FINDINGS OF FACT
16 Smith (‘306) teaches a mail tracing and tracking system. See abstract.
17 A user of the system accesses a web page and is able to see mail or packages
18 that are to be delivered to the user. The user can also obtain information
19 about the mail or packages. See figure 3 and paragraph 0010. The system
20 allows a user to see an image of the mail; the image may be created by
21 scanning the mail by the Post Office. See figure 6 and paragraph 0038.
22 Smith (‘306) teaches that the additional information displayed to the user is
23 supplied directly from the sender through machine readable code, pre-coded
24 delivery labels, or electronic mailings. See paragraph 0040. The system
25 makes use of a database which links user physical address, e-mail, and user
26 ID. See paragraph 0049. The user ID is used by the system to identify the
27 user and provides access to the system. See paragraph 0054. Smith (‘306)
28
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013