Appeal No. 2006-2513
Application No. 10/060,782
group lists and aliases (id.). Appellant argues that inherency cannot be used to reject a
claim under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 (Brief at 21-22), and while not alleging that well known e-
mail programs do not include features such as creating and managing group lists and
aliases, appellant complains that only Meister, Sheldon, and Minich have been named
in the statement of the rejection (Reply Brief at 15).
Even assuming appellant=s arguments with respect to Ainherency@ and improper
procedure to be correct, appellant has not rebutted the examiner=s finding that Meister=s
teachings are sufficient to demonstrate assigning a new group name to destinations for
registration in a destination list in the prior art, even without the presumption of what is
inherent or the presumption of what one skilled in the art knew apart from what is set
forth in the text and drawings of Meister. Appellant=s further argument in support of
claim 17, and of claims 18 through 21, rests on the position that Meister, Sheldon, and
Minich do not teach the claimed deletion of the operation symbols (Brief at 21-24; Reply
Brief at 14-17), which rests in turn on the untenable position that the teachings of Minich
are limited to Web searches. We sustain the rejection of claims 17 through 21.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013