Appeal No. 2002-1623
Application 09/619,933
in revising the script for potentially dangerous
statements.
Contrary to the examiner’s views expressed with respect
to Hansen within the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of certain
claims on appeal, these statements clearly indicate that the
originator is not able to make a "completely self-removing" file
“enhancement” to any email message within Ness. The claimed
self-removal ability must come from the originator of the message
and not the user/reader. Since the examiner has not provided
evidence to us that the essential subject matter of representa-
tive independent claims 1, 2 and 10 on appeal are anticipated by
Hansen, we must reverse the rejection of each of them and their
respective dependent claims as well rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
We also reverse the rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102 because we agree with the appellant’s views
expressed at page 6 of the principal Brief on appeal and in the
Reply Brief that Hansen does not even discuss advertising, let
alone to the level of anticipating the present feature of the
claims on appeal. The mere conveyance of a birthday event
announcement according to Appendix 1 at pages 30 and 31 of
Hansen even by email does not necessarily convey to the reader
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007