Appeal 2006-3269
Application 10/734,811
7). As stated supra, the question whether a reference “teaches away” from the
invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Further, we do not rely on
Gal’s disclosure of separate emails for each invitation as the basis for our finding
of anticipation. Rather, we affirm the Examiner’s finding of anticipation based on
Gal’s use of a dynamically-created web page to send invitations for multiple events
to a recipient.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 10-15,
17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gal.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17, and 18 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013