Appeal 2007-0964
Application 09/984,929
delivered”(emphasis original). Thus, Appellant argues that Terada does not teach
or suggest the claim limitation of “distributing said electronic document after
creating the distribution list.” (Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 2-3)
The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper and finds that Terada
teaches the creation of a distribution list. Creation of this list is triggered by
delivering or storing an e-mail created fresh. (Answer 9).
Thus, the second issue for us to consider is whether Terada teaches or
suggests distributing said electronic document after creating the distribution list.
We note that Appellant’s arguments on pages 6 through 7 of the Brief discuss
claims 1 through 15, 17 through 29, and 31 through 35 as a group. Thus, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) we claims 1 through 15, 17 through
29, and 31 through 35 together as one group and select claim 1 as representative of
the group to decide this issue.
Third issue:
Appellant contends that the rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is in error. Appellant contends that in Terada the
electronic document is delivered prior to saving the distribution list. As such
Appellant reasons that Terada does not teach or suggest the claim 36 limitation of
“saving said distribution list at the time of distributing said electronic document.”
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper as Terada teaches in
paragraphs 53 and 54 that the list is created and stored at the time of delivery.
Thus, the third issue for us to consider is whether Terada teaches or suggests
“saving said distribution list at the time of distributing said electronic document.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013