Appeal 2006-3269
Application 10/734,811
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Sarid (Gal)1 WO 01/52106 A2 Jul. 19, 2001
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gal.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 18 are not anticipated
by Gal, because Gal does not teach or suggest sending a multi-event invitation via
email, as required by independent claims 1, 6, and 15 (Br. 6). The Examiner found
that Gal anticipates claims 1, 6, and 15, because Gal discloses a method of
selectively distributing invitations by email wherein at least one of the email
invitations sent in the sending step invites its recipient to a plurality of events
(Answer 3-5). The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Gal anticipates claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 18.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts:
“Email,” shorthand for “electronic mail,” are “messages sent by a user and
retrieved by another through an electronic service system, most often via telephone
lines or radio transmission.” Jerry M. Rosenberg, Dictionary of Computers,
1 Although the first named inventor is Sarid, the Examiner and Appellants refer to
the document throughout by reference to the second named inventor, Gal. To
avoid confusion, we refer to the reference as “Gal.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013