Appeal 2007-1715 Page 10
Application 10/033,224
packing material, and container. The claims do not so require. They require only
that the database have “a weight associated with said corresponding article, said
packing material, and said container” (claim 3). A single weight value of a
package, such as suggested in Nicholls, can meet that limitation. Accordingly,
because it is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection.
The rejection is affirmed.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 3, 15, and 17over the prior art.
Claims 5-9 and 12-14
Pursuant to the rules, the Board selects representative claim 5 to decide the
appeal with respect to this group of claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). It
reads as follows:
5. A method of providing for weight-based determinations of one or
more articles to be shipped, the method comprising the steps of:
a) initiating a cost determining routine in a shipping system
application at a first node;
b) entering a code or a description of each one of said one or more
articles into a first data field of said routine;
c) entering a code or a description of the container in which the
articles are going to be shipped;
d) transmitting a query from said routine to a database located at a
second node for a weight associated with said each one of said one or more
articles and said container;
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013