Appeal No. 2006-2742
Application No. 10/115,138
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of the
remaining claims, we note that the Examiner further relies on
Speicher, Herman and Thompson for rejecting claims 4, 9 and 10,
respectively. We observe that claims 4 and 9 are dependent upon
claim 1 while claim 10, similar to claim 1, requires detecting
the unique ID from the e-mail address. Since the unique ID of
Talati is not included in the e-mail address, as argued by
Appellants (brief, page 37), and the Examiner has pointed to no
additional teachings in these prior art references related to a
unique ID included in an e-mail address that would have overcome
the deficiencies of Talati as discussed above with respect to
claims 1 and 5-8, the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claim 4 over
Talati and Speicher, of claim 9 over Talati and Herman and of
claim 10 over Talati and Thompson cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 7 and 10 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, claims 1 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102 and claims 4, 9
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007