Ex Parte Meister et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2007-0288                                                                                
                Application 10/715,408                                                                          
                       We find that the portions of the original Specification and claims,                      
                cited by Appellants, address the actuation of the send function rather than                     
                “not created by a user.”  Appellants’ arguments also go to a “non-user”, but                    
                the claim language at issue is “not created by a user.”  Furthermore, we find                   
                a distinction between an owner or non-owner as in the Specification and a                       
                user or non-user in the claim language.  Therefore, Appellants' argument is                     
                not persuasive.                                                                                 
                       We also find Appellants’ arguments concerning genus/species do not                       
                address the composition or creation of the message by a non-user.                               
                Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.  We have considered all                      
                of Appellants’ arguments advanced with respect to the objection to the                          
                Specification as they apply to our new grounds of rejection for a lack of                       
                written description, and we do not find them persuasive.  Therefore, we have                    
                set forth a rejection above.                                                                    

                                                  DECISION                                                      
                       In summary, we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of all the                         
                claims on appeal.  Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims                     
                1-13 is reversed.                                                                               
                       We have entered a new grounds of rejection against claims 1-13 under                     
                37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).                                                                           
                       As indicated supra, this decision contains a new ground of rejection                     
                pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (amended effective September 13, 2004, by                      
                final rule notice 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat.                     
                & Trademark Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).  37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)                               



                                                       9                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013