Appeal No. 2002-0648
Application 09/090,698
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief (no reply has been
filed) and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
As explained below, we sustain the rejection of all claims
on appeal except for independent claims 6, 18 and 30. We do so
for the reasoning set forth by the examiner in the answer
including the responsive arguments portion thereof.
At the outset, we observe that appellant presents no
arguments in the brief that the respective references are not
properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103. Each claim on appeal
is considered to have effective arguments of patentability
according to the groupings at pages 6 and 7 of the brief.
Each of independent claims 6, 18 and 30 have corresponding
method, apparatus and program product limitations corresponding
to each other. Among these claims the feature of "determining
that the message indicates that the address is invalid" is more
specifically recited to comprise "searching for the message in a
user-selected list of error messages." We reverse the rejection
of each of these respective claims because this latter quoted
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007