Appeal 2007-0678
Application 09/818,792
1 Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002)
2 (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1474,
3 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989
4 ANALYSIS
5 Independent claim 1, recites “capturing … the name and physical
6 address of the recipient and the sender in the form of an image … the image
7 is processed by translating the image consisting of text and graphics to
8 selected alphanumerics … translating by a data center the name and physical
9 address of the recipient into an e-mail address.” Thus, we find the scope of
10 claim 1 includes that an image of the letter which contains a physical address
11 is captured, and the physical address is translated into an e-mail address.
12 As discussed supra, we do not find that either of the Smith references
13 teaches translating a physical address to an e-mail address, nor do we find
14 that Higgins teaches this step.
15 CONCLUSION
16 We consider the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be
17 in error as we do not find that the combination of the references applied by
18 the Examiner teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
19 Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
20 claim 1 or dependent claims 2 through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013