Appeal 2007-1409
Application 09/823,626
enriched) to the subscriber. See flow chart figure 5 and paragraphs [153]-
[154]. Gifford also teaches that the system can be used by a brokerage
company to notify clients of changes in the market wherein the e-mail is
enriched with a link to forms for the purchase or sale of stock. Para. [0028].
Thus, Gifford teaches a system where a subscriber can enable e-mail
notifications of non-literal communications and enable enriched e-mail
notifications. However, Gifford does not teach that the subscriber can
enable e-mail notification of content specific e-mail (i.e. enable e-mail
“describing the [detected] event” as recited in claim 1).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with the Examiner’s rationale. Independent claim 1
recites “detecting an event that changes an association between one of the
customers and the particular agent; determining whether the particular agent
has enabled notification of account changes; and in response to detecting the
event and determining that the particular agent has enabled notification of
account changes, generating an electronic mail message describing the
event.” Independent claims 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, and 32 recite similar
limitations. Thus, the scope of the independent claims includes generating
an e-mail describing an event if both the determining and the detecting steps
are met. Further, the scope of claim 1 is limited to the e-mail providing
notification of the detected event. Independent claims 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, and
32 recite similar limitations.
We do not find that that the combination of the references makes
obvious generating an e-mail if both a change in account status is detected
and it is determined that the agent associated with the account has enabled a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013