Appeal No. 2003-2074
Application No. 09/095,325
We again note that the examiner’s requirement of an
“explicit” disclosure of the claimed features is not required by
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
While the specification does not explicitly describe the
transparency feature as now claimed, the artisan reading the
instant specification would have gleaned therefrom the invention
as now claimed. For example, at page 22, describing Figure 9, it
is disclosed that messages are retrieved from the communication
server, and a delta routine is applied thereto in order to
reconstruct a replica of the reply message. Once reconstructed,
the reply message is “forwarded to the target unit(s), as well as
to the outbox or sent mail folder of the client’s post office box
(steps 914-916).” It seems clear, then, that the user does not
e-mail directly from his mobile unit, i.e., the mobile client
does not have an e-mail address or e-mail functionality, but that
the host server provides the e-mail address and forwards e-mail
to recipients who are unaware of any address from the mobile
client. Thus, while not explicitly describing the transparency
feature of the instant claims, the artisan would have understood
that such a transparency function was in the inventors’
possession at the time of filing the instant application.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007