Appeal 2007-3141
Application 10/696,894
1 the weight of said parcel or envelope and
2 computing a cost for mailing said parcel or envelope to said
3 destination as a function of
4 said weight and
5 the selected delivery option;
6 [6] printer means in communication with said processor
7 for printing a bar code label for placement on the parcel or
8 envelope to be mailed by the customer identifying at least said
9 destination representative information and
10 to print a shipping receipt for an amount including at least
11 the cost of delivering said parcel or envelope
12 to said destination
13 via the delivery option chosen by said customer.
14
15 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed February 3,
16 2006. The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on February
17 12, 2007. An Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief was mailed on March 23,
18 2007. A Reply Brief was filed on February 12, 2007.
19 PRIOR ART
20 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Tateno US 4,836,352 Jun. 06, 1989
Hsieh US 4,923,022 May 08, 1990
Pusic US 5,065,000 Nov. 12, 1991
21 REJECTIONS
22 Claims 77 and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
23 Hsieh and Pusic.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013