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