Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Neopost Pc Meter Link Software Download
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Syreeta Emmons
Jan 10, 2024, 3:09:59 AM1/10/24
to
When the operator enters the correct pin number to login, the associated account list will appear to allow the operator to select a charge back account. If only one account is associated with the operator, the main operating screen will appear after entering the operator pin number.BAS-06-092 or DBX-06-092 Department is not associated to logged operatorThe user tries to use an account not linked to his profileBAS-06-093 or DBX-06-093 Delete not authorize. This is the last operator. If customer want to do not use operator logging anymore, only change accounting modeBAS-06-094 or DBX-06-094 Delete not authorize. This is the last account/department. If customer want not to use account anymore, only change accounting modeBAS-06-095 or DBX-06-095 There is no department on the server. Please connect to Neopost MAS server application and add an account.BAS-06-096 or DBX-06-096 This error appear if the operator is disabled on MAS server side between log in and batch startThis error appear if the operator is disabled on MAS server side between log in and batch startBAS-06-097 or DBX-06-097 This error appear if the account is disabled on MAS server side between logging and batch startThis error appear if the account is disabled on MAS server side between logging and batch startHELPDESK
neopost pc meter link software download
Download https://t.co/9pHS3DXQfL
Action:
Contact your local service provider.BAS-13-058 or DBX-13-058 Communication link with PSD is lostCommunication link with PSD is lostBAS-13-066 or DBX-13-066 Generic detection errorGeneric error occurs during the psd detection phaseBAS-13-067 or DBX-13-067 Incorrect PSD (Meter) type is installed in the machine.Incorrect PSD (Meter) type is installed in the machine.CUSTOMER
A postal inspection (audit) connects the PSD (meter) to the funds server and uploads the PSD (meter) register information. After a 90-day period of inactivity (no connection to Funds Server), the postage functions are automatically deactivated to protect your funds. To reactivate postage functions, a postal inspection must be performed.
The European market, dominated by postal monopolies, left little room for expansion, and by the late 1970s, Alcatel sought an entry into the huge U.S. market. Yet the U.S. market itself remained restricted to just four companies authorized by the United States Postal Service to produce postage metering equipment. In 1979, Alcatel found an entry when it merged its mailing and logistics equipment division with Friden Mailing Equipment.
Friden Alcatel continued to innovate in the early 1980s. The emergence of independent postal services, including United Parcel Service and Federal Express, created a new demand for logistics equipment and systems. Friden Alcatel extended its metering equipment into this new area, introducing its All-electronic Shipping & Mailing System in 1982. The following year, the company introduced the scale-based Manifest Shipping system. Then in 1984, the company integrated its shipping system with the growing business application market, linking its logistics and metering systems with computer-based platforms.
Both the contested patent and R8 related to modular systems where an accounting unit and a printing unit were connected by an insecure link. Such systems had to be distinguished from franking machines which included a printer in a secure housing as disclosed in R9 (GB-A-2 194 852). It was generally agreed that R8 constituted the closest prior art and disclosed, in combination, the features of the precharacterising part of claim 1 of the contested patent. In the multidenomination embodiment of R8 (page 10, lines 15 to 21), the number signal, the signal representing the amount of postage, and the reply signal respectively corresponded to the code signal, the print data signal and the returned print data signal of the contested patent. The reply signal in R8, although encrypted, had the same content as the combined code and print data signals in the contested patent. Printing of unauthorized franking was inhibited when a comparator (42) contained in the printing unit (12) indicated a difference between the transmitted and return signals.
However, it was generally known that any franking machine had to fulfil two absolute requirements, ie to prevent printing when tampering with the machine was detected and to prevent the accounting of postage value when franking failed to be carried out. Therefore, in practice, both the printing and the accounting functions would be stopped, as was the case in the contested patent. It merely constituted a routine choice whether the comparison means was placed in the printing unit or in the accounting unit. In both cases, one function could be directly inhibited while the other function had to be inhibited, eg by a signal from the output of the comparison means transmitted via the existing insecure link or via an extra line. The level of security would thereby be decreased. The same was true of the modular system of the contested patent, in particular if the printer were arranged in an insecure housing. The remaining differences set out in claim 1 of the contested patent would automatically disappear once the choice was made to place the comparison means in the secure accounting unit (cf Sketches 1 and 2 attached to the decision under appeal). Since franking was accounted for in the accounting unit, the print data signal was available there and would be combined with the code signal for transmission to the printing unit. In a multidenomination use, it was obvious to generate the print data signal in the accounting unit in order to control the amount of postage to be printed. The use of encryptors (34, 40) in R8 (Figure 1) did not change the content of the return signal and could also be dispensed with if a lower level of security was accepted. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the contested patent thus derived from an obvious choice and consequential modifications which involved no inventive step.
Even if the person skilled in the art, deviating from the teaching of R8, had thought of locating the comparison means with the accounting circuits in the secure housing, a binary output signal of the comparison means would then have to be transmitted to the printing unit for activating or inhibiting the printer. With an insecure communication link, fraudulent operation of the printing unit would be easily achieved by applying a binary signal to the printing unit. In view of the teaching of R8, the person skilled in the art would discard such a solution.
2.2. A combined signal is thus transmitted from the accounting unit to the printing unit. Both the "print data signal" and the "code signal" are returned to the accounting unit and compared, in the secure housing, with the corresponding elements of the transmitted combined print data and code signals. This serves the purpose of ensuring the integrity of the data transmitted via the (insecure) connection by checking the transmission of the print data signal and, as an additional security check, of the (eg random) code signal (column 5, lines 18 to 21 and 29 to 36). These security measures are "effective to ensure detection of fraudulent attempts to operate the print head by means of signals applied externally to the print head or drive circuits thereof while the print head remains connected to the meter" (column 6, lines 9 to 14). This presupposes that it is ensured by other means that the printing unit is not disconnected. Otherwise, the transmitted signal could be easily returned by appropriate means to the accounting unit (column 6, lines 9 to 19). Although the introductory part of the patent specification addresses several problems, as pointed out by the appellant, it is clear from the patent specification as a whole that claim 1 sets out the essential features of a solution to the partial problem of ensuring the integrity of the transmitted data against external interfering while the printing unit remains connected (see also column 7, lines 8 to 10).
A couple years back, E-Stamp first proposed the idea of letting people pay for postage over the Net and print it themselves from their PC. That generated some press, but the proof-of-concept didn't arrive until March 31, 1998, when Postmaster General Marvin Runyon pulled a SmartStamp off an HP LaserJet. The demo confirmed E-Stamp's jump on rival Neopost as well as its threat to Pitney Bowes, which holds a\nopoly on mechanical postage metering. (The USPS intends to retire all 362,946 mechanical meters now in use by 2000.)
35fe9a5643
neopost pc meter link software download
Download https://t.co/9pHS3DXQfL
Action:
Contact your local service provider.BAS-13-058 or DBX-13-058 Communication link with PSD is lostCommunication link with PSD is lostBAS-13-066 or DBX-13-066 Generic detection errorGeneric error occurs during the psd detection phaseBAS-13-067 or DBX-13-067 Incorrect PSD (Meter) type is installed in the machine.Incorrect PSD (Meter) type is installed in the machine.CUSTOMER
A postal inspection (audit) connects the PSD (meter) to the funds server and uploads the PSD (meter) register information. After a 90-day period of inactivity (no connection to Funds Server), the postage functions are automatically deactivated to protect your funds. To reactivate postage functions, a postal inspection must be performed.
The European market, dominated by postal monopolies, left little room for expansion, and by the late 1970s, Alcatel sought an entry into the huge U.S. market. Yet the U.S. market itself remained restricted to just four companies authorized by the United States Postal Service to produce postage metering equipment. In 1979, Alcatel found an entry when it merged its mailing and logistics equipment division with Friden Mailing Equipment.
Friden Alcatel continued to innovate in the early 1980s. The emergence of independent postal services, including United Parcel Service and Federal Express, created a new demand for logistics equipment and systems. Friden Alcatel extended its metering equipment into this new area, introducing its All-electronic Shipping & Mailing System in 1982. The following year, the company introduced the scale-based Manifest Shipping system. Then in 1984, the company integrated its shipping system with the growing business application market, linking its logistics and metering systems with computer-based platforms.
Both the contested patent and R8 related to modular systems where an accounting unit and a printing unit were connected by an insecure link. Such systems had to be distinguished from franking machines which included a printer in a secure housing as disclosed in R9 (GB-A-2 194 852). It was generally agreed that R8 constituted the closest prior art and disclosed, in combination, the features of the precharacterising part of claim 1 of the contested patent. In the multidenomination embodiment of R8 (page 10, lines 15 to 21), the number signal, the signal representing the amount of postage, and the reply signal respectively corresponded to the code signal, the print data signal and the returned print data signal of the contested patent. The reply signal in R8, although encrypted, had the same content as the combined code and print data signals in the contested patent. Printing of unauthorized franking was inhibited when a comparator (42) contained in the printing unit (12) indicated a difference between the transmitted and return signals.
However, it was generally known that any franking machine had to fulfil two absolute requirements, ie to prevent printing when tampering with the machine was detected and to prevent the accounting of postage value when franking failed to be carried out. Therefore, in practice, both the printing and the accounting functions would be stopped, as was the case in the contested patent. It merely constituted a routine choice whether the comparison means was placed in the printing unit or in the accounting unit. In both cases, one function could be directly inhibited while the other function had to be inhibited, eg by a signal from the output of the comparison means transmitted via the existing insecure link or via an extra line. The level of security would thereby be decreased. The same was true of the modular system of the contested patent, in particular if the printer were arranged in an insecure housing. The remaining differences set out in claim 1 of the contested patent would automatically disappear once the choice was made to place the comparison means in the secure accounting unit (cf Sketches 1 and 2 attached to the decision under appeal). Since franking was accounted for in the accounting unit, the print data signal was available there and would be combined with the code signal for transmission to the printing unit. In a multidenomination use, it was obvious to generate the print data signal in the accounting unit in order to control the amount of postage to be printed. The use of encryptors (34, 40) in R8 (Figure 1) did not change the content of the return signal and could also be dispensed with if a lower level of security was accepted. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the contested patent thus derived from an obvious choice and consequential modifications which involved no inventive step.
Even if the person skilled in the art, deviating from the teaching of R8, had thought of locating the comparison means with the accounting circuits in the secure housing, a binary output signal of the comparison means would then have to be transmitted to the printing unit for activating or inhibiting the printer. With an insecure communication link, fraudulent operation of the printing unit would be easily achieved by applying a binary signal to the printing unit. In view of the teaching of R8, the person skilled in the art would discard such a solution.
2.2. A combined signal is thus transmitted from the accounting unit to the printing unit. Both the "print data signal" and the "code signal" are returned to the accounting unit and compared, in the secure housing, with the corresponding elements of the transmitted combined print data and code signals. This serves the purpose of ensuring the integrity of the data transmitted via the (insecure) connection by checking the transmission of the print data signal and, as an additional security check, of the (eg random) code signal (column 5, lines 18 to 21 and 29 to 36). These security measures are "effective to ensure detection of fraudulent attempts to operate the print head by means of signals applied externally to the print head or drive circuits thereof while the print head remains connected to the meter" (column 6, lines 9 to 14). This presupposes that it is ensured by other means that the printing unit is not disconnected. Otherwise, the transmitted signal could be easily returned by appropriate means to the accounting unit (column 6, lines 9 to 19). Although the introductory part of the patent specification addresses several problems, as pointed out by the appellant, it is clear from the patent specification as a whole that claim 1 sets out the essential features of a solution to the partial problem of ensuring the integrity of the transmitted data against external interfering while the printing unit remains connected (see also column 7, lines 8 to 10).
A couple years back, E-Stamp first proposed the idea of letting people pay for postage over the Net and print it themselves from their PC. That generated some press, but the proof-of-concept didn't arrive until March 31, 1998, when Postmaster General Marvin Runyon pulled a SmartStamp off an HP LaserJet. The demo confirmed E-Stamp's jump on rival Neopost as well as its threat to Pitney Bowes, which holds a\nopoly on mechanical postage metering. (The USPS intends to retire all 362,946 mechanical meters now in use by 2000.)
35fe9a5643
0 new messages