Appeal 2007-0933 Page 6
Application 10/310,733
11. Appellant also argues that, unlike Bresnan, Bucci does not teach or suggest a
system for mail piece production that includes a duplex printer and there is no
motivation to combine the two references to derive the claimed mail processing
machine comprising “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” that a value related to the weight of the documents
exceeds the postal threshold. (Br. 9-10).
C. Principles of Law
1. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
D. Analysis
There is no dispute that Bresnan discloses a system comprising two
subsystems – an initiating node and a printer adapted to receive data to be printed
and to print documents based on the data. (FF1 and 2; see also Bresnan, col. 3, ll.
16-43). A close reading of Bresnan reveals that the initiating node includes a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013