Appeal 2007-2250
Application 09/818,480
REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Higgins US 5,754,671 May 19, 1998
Smith (Smith ‘808) US 2002/0042808 A1 Apr. 11, 2002
(effectively filed Sep. 29, 2000)
Smith (Smith ‘306) US 2002/0095306 A1 Jul. 18, 2002
(effectively filed Sep. 29, 2000)
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith (‘306 or ‘808) in view of Higgins. The Examiner’s
rejection is set forth on pages 4 through 7 of the Answer. Throughout the
opinion, we make reference to the Brief (filed January 30, 2006) and the
Answer (mailed September 1, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant asserts that:
Neither Smith nor Higgins, taken separately or together,
discloses or anticipates the steps of claim 1, namely, capturing by the
sender the name and physical address of the recipient and the sender
in the form of an image; transmitting the image to a data center where
the image is processed by translating the image consisting of text and
graphics to selected alphanumerics; translating the name and physical
address of the recipient into an e-mail address; and notifying the
recipient of the expected delivery of the sealed mail and indicating the
selected alphanumerics of the translated image.
(Br. 15, 16.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013