Appeal 2007-0678
Application 09/818,792
1 incorporates by reference the disclosure of Smith (‘808). See paragraph
2 0020.
3 Smith (‘808) discloses that the tracking system can be used to perform
4 selected actions with the mail such as change delivery method or location.
5 See paragraph 0015. Further, Smith (‘808) teaches that the system can use
6 identifiers other than physical address of the user to determine the identity of
7 the individual to whom the letter or package is destined. Smith (‘808)
8 discusses addressing physical letters using an identifier such as an e-mail
9 address; this address can then be correlated with the individual’s current
10 physical address. See paragraph 0025. Further, Smith (‘808) teaches that
11 the identifiers can be machine read from the letter, and the current physical
12 address is then printed on the letter for physical delivery. See paragraphs
13 0026 and 0027. We find no discussion in Smith (‘808) of scanning in a
14 physical address and translating it to an e-mail address.
15 Higgins teaches a system for recognition of an address on a letter
16 which has been hand written in cursive. See abstract. We find no discussion
17 in Higgins of scanning a physical address and translating it to an e-mail
18 address.
19 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
20 Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
21 determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
22 Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed.
23 Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be
24 confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification,
25 which is improper.’” (emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013