Appeal No. 2006-2763
Application 09/785,385
Claims 1 and 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by DeSimone.
Claims 7-9, 11 and 14-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeSimone and Waters.
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeSimone, Waters and Lambright.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Brief (filed
October 13, 2005) and the Answer (mailed January 13, 2006) for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered (37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims, the focus of
Appellant’s contention is that DeSimone identifies destinations only by address
instead of by message content type and thus, cannot anticipate the subject matter of
claim 1 (Br. 3). The Examiner argues that DeSimone teaches distributing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013