Appeal 2007-1799
Application 10/036,991
containment chamber to the outgoing mail handler satisfies the requirement
in Appellants’ claim for a filtered transition area downstream of the sanitizer
module. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that
Call fails to teach a filtered transition area downstream of the sanitizer
module (Br. 13).
According to Appellants’ Specification the present invention is
directed to an automated mailpiece sorting apparatus that comprises a
sorting apparatus, sanitizer and compartments or bins for receiving sorted
mailpieces (Specification 4: ¶ 8). Call teaches that “[o]nce passed through
mail sampling system . . . screened mail . . . can be processed by
conventional mail handler machines, such as conventional systems that
automatically read address information from each piece of mail, and route
the mail to the appropriate location” (Call 9: ¶ 0121; ‘674 14: 1-3). In our
opinion Call’s process inherently results in a sanitized mailpiece being
received by an output bin module. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ assertion that Call does not teach an output bin module for
receiving a mailpiece after the mailpiece has been sanitized (Br. 13).
We recognize Appellants’ assertion that Call is only available as prior
art to the extent it is supported by the underlying provisional application
[(‘674)]. Appellants question whether the teachings in Call, as relied upon
by the Examiner, are supported by the ‘674 provisional application. We are
not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion. In the foregoing discussion, we find
support for each limitation of Appellants’ claimed invention not only in Call,
but also in the underlying ‘674 provisional application.
On reflection, having found no error in the Examiner’s prima facie
case of anticipation, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013