Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with three issues.
a) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the
references teaches the claimed step of charging the recipient for
delivering the mail in the manner specified by the recipient to the
carrier.
b) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the cited patents teach
utilizing the telephone number of the recipient and the translated
image alphanumerics to inform the recipient of the expected delivery
of the deposited mail via a tactile communications device.
c) Whether the Examiner erred in holding that the skilled artisan
would combine the features of the references.
Rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant argues, on page 13 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of clam 12 is in error. Appellant reasons that:
Sherwood discloses a system in which the arrival of voice mail
messages is available in business services for an extra fee. Kuebert, et
al., Lynt, et al., Srinivasan and Sherwood do not disclose or anticipate
a method in which a recipient is charged for receiving notification of
the availability of deposited mail (letters and/or packages).
(Brief 13).
The Examiner responds on page 11 of the Answer, stating that the
combination of Kuebert, Lynt, and Srinivasan teaches a method of flexible
mail delivery and that Sherwood teaches that a user is charged for
notification.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in deciding that the combination of the references makes
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013