Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
obvious the limitation of charging the user to receive the notification as
recited in claim 12.
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant argues, on page 14 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17 is in error. Appellant reasons that the art cited by the
Examiner teaches that the sender pays the fee to keep the mail and not have
it destroyed, whereas the claim recites that the recipient notifies the carrier to
destroy the mail.
The Examiner responds, on page 12 of the Answer, stating “McKeen,
Jr. teaches said method and apparatus for verified mail system, wherein the
verified content of the recipient mail is destroyed if the recipient does not
want to keep it stored (column 2, lines 28-35).”
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the references makes
obvious a system where the recipient notifies the carrier to destroy the mail,
as recited in claim 17.
Rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant argues, on page 14 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 18 is in error. Appellant reasons that the art cited by the
Examiner does not teach that the recipient notifies the carrier to recycle the
material comprising the mail.
The Examiner responds, on pages 12-13 of the Answer, stating
“Gordon et al. teaches said method and system for a mail delivery including
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013