Appeal 2007-3141
Application 10/696,894
1 ANALYSIS
2 Claims 77 and 80 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsieh
3 and Pusic.
4 The Appellants argue these claims as a group.
5 Accordingly, we select claim 77 as representative of the group.
6 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
7 The Examiner found that Hsieh described all of the limitations of claim 77
8 except for the printing limitation [6]. The Examiner found that Pusic described
9 limitation [6], and that one of ordinary skill would have known that printing
10 franking codes would provide quicker delivery. The Examiner concluded that it
11 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined
12 Hsieh and Pusic to achieve the claimed invention for that reason (Answer 4).
13 The Appellants contend that Hsieh does not compute costs based on the
14 destination (Appeal Br. 6:Bottom ¶ - 7:Top 2 lines; 7:Second full ¶). The
15 Appellant also contends that Pusic fails to describe a selectable delivery option
16 (Appeal Br. 7:First full ¶). The Appellants further argue that Hsieh teaches away
17 from claim 77 because it is limited to not computations using two variables
18 (Appeal Br. 8:First full ¶) and there would be no reasonable expectation of success
19 in achieving the limitations of claim 77 for similar reasons (Appeal Br. 9:Bottom
20 ¶). The Appellants also contend there is no suggestion to combine Hsieh and Pusic
21 (Appeal Br. 9:First full ¶). The Appellants conclude that the combination of Hsieh
22 and Pusic do not allow for different delivery options or are limited to delivery
23 options whose pricing is independent of destination (Appeal Br. 8:Bottom ¶ -
24 9:Top 2 lines).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013