Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
recycling a postcard after the contents of the postcard was distributed to the
recipient via e-mail (column 15, lines 63-65).”
Thus, the contentions of the Appellant 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 recycle the
mail, as recited in claim 18.
Rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant argues, on page 15 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17 is in error. Appellant reasons that the art cited by the
Examiner does not teach notifying the recipient of mail via television as
claimed in claim 22.
The Examiner responds, on page 13 of the Answer, stating “Busch et
al. teaches said method and system for sharing information in a network
environment, wherein a user receives a message via Web-TV or regular mail
delivery (column 4, lines 38-44).”
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 recipient of mail via
television as claimed in claim 22.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Kuebert teaches a system where the recipient of a mail item
can change the delivery point and or time of delivery. (Para.
0017).
2) Kuebert teaches that the system captures an image of the
mail item's delivery address and return address. The data in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013