Appeal 2007-0933 Page 4
Application 10/310,733
(Answer 3-4).
2. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of what Bresnan
discloses.
3. The Examiner finds that the difference between the claims and Bresnan is
that Bresnan does not disclose “means for determining if a value related to the
weight of said documents exceeds postal threshold means upstream of the printer
to select the process for franking the cover by recto-verso printing the documents
at will based upon the threshold determination,” i.e., the last two “means” set forth
in the claims. (Answer 4).
4. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of the difference
between the claims and Bresnan. (Br. 9).
5. The Examiner relies on Bucci to overcome the difference between the
claimed invention and Bresnan.
6. The Examiner finds that the “Bucci system is capable to perform
determining if a value related to the weight of said documents exceeds postal
threshold means” (Answer 4) because Bucci (col. 1, ll. 36-42) states the following
Research has revealed, however, that up to 5 sheets of 81/2”x11” paper
can be mailed in the same envelope, and still pay at the same 1 oz. rate.
Further research has shown that by printing on both sides of said
sheet, one can effectively transmit by hard-copy mail 10 pages of
information in a single 1 oz. mailing.
7. The Examiner finds that
[i]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention was made to modify the teachings of Bresnan
by including means for determining if a value related to the weight of said
documents exceeds postal threshold means upstream of the printer to select
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013