Appeal No. 2002-1623
Application 09/619,933
OPINION
We reverse.
Each of independent claims 1, 2 and 10 on appeal in
some manner require steps associated with the originator of an
email message of “creating a self-removing email message by
placing advertising in an email message as message content and by
associating a self-removal enhancement with the email message.”
We reverse the outstanding rejections of the claims on appeal
because the examiner has failed to meet the advertising require-
ment of this clause as well as the self-removing requirement of
the claims on appeal.
We agree with appellant’s urging at pages 5 and 6 of
the principal Brief on appeal that Hansen does not provide a
self-removing message as called for in the claims. In fact, the
messages are removed by the recipient. As we will show, we do
not agree with the examiner’s view at the bottom of page 7 of the
Answer that “Hansen teaches enhanced documents with embedded
scripts that have [a] capability of automatically performing
functions that [a] user can execute manually such as deleting a
file.” Within the context of Hansen, there is no automatic
deletion of a file to the extent the examiner takes this view.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007