This opinion is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PITNEY BOWES, INC.
____________
Appeal 2007-2637
Application 10/741,269
Technology Center 1700
____________
Decided: July 10, 2007
____________
Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON, and ROMULO H.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal relates to methods for creating folded, scented inserts for
mail items created in a high-speed mail-processing system. The examiner
rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as having been obvious. The
appellant (Pitney Bowes) seeks review of the rejection. We affirm.
First, the claim scope and meaning of contested limitations of claims
must be established.1 Next, the scope and content of the prior art must be
1 Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1335-36, 79 USPQ2d
1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (scope and meaning); Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013