Appeal No. 2006-2513
Application No. 10/060,782
Claims 5, 6-8, 11-15
Appellant=s arguments in defense of claim 5 presuppose that the teachings of
Minich are limited to World Wide Web searches. As we have indicated in our
consideration of claim 3, we find the position to be untenable. We sustain the rejection
of claim 5.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 13, and 15, appellant alleges that the references do
not teach or suggest the features relating to Aorder specifying operation symbols.@
Appellant=s argument in support of the allegation is that although Minich discloses the
use of parentheses symbols, the reference states that the symbols are for nesting
Boolean expressions. In appellant=s view, Minich does not teach or suggest the use of
parentheses symbols for specifying the order of priority for performing the operations.
(Brief at 18-20.)
We disagree with appellant=s assessment of the Minich reference, and in
particular with what the Anesting@ of Boolean (or algebraic) expressions constitutes. The
examiner provides findings (Answer at 13) with respect to the artisan=s understanding of
Minich=s teachings regarding the use of parentheses, which appellant has not
persuasively rebutted. Appellant having failed to show error in the rejection of claims 7,
8, 13, and 15, we sustain the rejection.
With respect to claim 14, appellant contends that Meister (col. 5, ll. 17-27) does
not teach that address deletion is performed before the transmission of the electronic
mail so that only the group name is displayed in the destination section on a screen
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013