Appeal No. 2006-2742
Application No. 10/115,138
Upon a careful review of the claim language and the
specification (page 14, lines 4-11; step 45 in Figure 5), we find
that Athe generated unique ID,@ as recited in claim 7, clearly
refers to the unique ID included in the e-mail address.2
Regarding claim 10, we also agree with Appellants that erasing
the unique ID in response to memorized data is definite since
memorization of the user identification and registration-target
data at the user identification/registration-target data memory
device is clearly recited. In view of the above and in light of
the specification as a whole, we find that the recited features
in claims 7 and 10 are sufficiently defined and would reasonably
apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of these
limitations. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 7 and 10 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. ' 102 rejection of claims 1
and 5-8, Appellants assert that Talati cannot teach all the
claimed elements since element 331, as depicted in Figure 12,
2 We observe that Appellants= amendment to the claim, filed July 7, 2005
after the final rejection and adding the term AID@ to the above-mentioned
portion of claim 7 as later proposed by the Examiner (answer, page 3),
overcame an earlier rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 112.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007