Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
a service received for the expected result of generating revenue for the
business providing the service. Thus, we are not persuaded by the
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 is in error.
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17. Claim 17 recites that “the recipient notifies the carrier to destroy
mail.” The Examiner finds that McKeen teaches this limitation. We
disagree with the Examiner’s finding. McKeen teaches that the sender’s
action of not renewing the storage fee, rather than an instruction by the
recipient, results in the destruction of the mail. (Fact 12). The Examiner has
not found that the other references of record teach this limitation. We note
that Kuebert also discusses destruction of the mail; however similar to
McKeen, it is at the request of the sender. (Para. 0055). As we do not find
that the references of record teach or suggest this limitation, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18. Claim 18 recites that “the recipient notifies the carrier to recycle
the material comprising the mail.” The Examiner finds that Gordon teaches
this limitation. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding. Gordon teaches
that the post office recycles the mail. Gordon does not identify or suggest
that the sender’s actions result in the recycling of the mail. (Fact 13). As we
do not find that the references of record teach or suggest this limitation, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013