Ex Parte Sansone - Page 14



            Appeal 2007-1715                                                     Page 14                     
            Application 10/033,224                                                                           

            art to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed                 
            invention, not statements made in the Specification. Furthermore, it is unclear to us            
            what Appellant means to say in directing our attention to that passage. The                      
            relationship between the passage and the claims is not explained. Much of what is                
            said in that passage is not in the claims. For example, the passage speaks of                    
            subscreens and UPC code, neither of which is a limitation in the claims.                         
            Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection.                  

                   E. Conclusion of Law                                                                      
                   On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner                   
            erred in rejecting claims 5-9 and 12-14 over the prior art.                                      

            Claim 10                                                                                         

                   Claim 10 reads as follows:                                                                
                   10. The method claimed in claim 5, further including the steps of:                        
                         entering a code or a description of the packing material that is                    
                   included in the container to be shipped; and                                              
                         determining the cost for shipping the packing material.                             
                   A. Issue                                                                                  
                   Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has not cited any art in the context of             
            the claimed invention that shows that it would have been obvious to: enter a code                
            or a description of the packing material that is included in the container to be                 
            shipped; and determining the cost for shipping the packing material.” Br. 21. The                





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013