Appeal No. 2002-1734
Application 09/399,066
Because of these teachings, we agree with appellant’s
arguments presented at the bottom of page 5 of the principal
Brief on Appeal because the examiner:
ignores the fundamental difference between
allowing the user to control file deletion,
as is done in Hansen, and providing a self-
removing message, as called for in the
claims. Even if removal of messages were
deemed inherent in Hansen, such messages are
not self-removing--they are instead removed
by the recipient.
Because of the noted quoted teachings of Hansen, we agree with
appellant’s basic view that Hansen does not teach self-removing
messages and self-removing codes/enhancements within a message
because it is the recipient rather than the origin or source of
the message that controls the removability thereof in accordance
with Hansen’s teachings.
In light of these assessments of Hansen, we also
reverse the rejection of independent claims 68 through 70 for
similar reasons. There is no self-removing message taught in
this reference to the extent recited in these claims. Likewise,
there is no self-removal enhancement taught in Hansen as to this
additional requirement of these claims. Finally, the examiner
has not indicated to us nor are we aware of any teaching within
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007