Appeal No. 98-1528 Page 7
Application No. 08/374,039
Vancouver Sun. Be that as it may, our problem with the
rejection resides in the next portion of the examiner’s
position, which is that it further would have been obvious to
include change of address indicia in the sender’s communication
to notify the recipient of the sender’s relocation. No
evidentiary basis is provided for this conclusion.
The rationale we expressed above with regard to the first
rejection also applies here. Neither of the references is at
all concerned with acknowledging a change in address, which is
the focus of the appellant’s claims, and while their combined
teachings might give rise to a method of communicating with an
ethereal being, they do not render obvious a method for
providing acknowledgment of a change of address from any
intended recipient, much less an ethereal being. Moreover,
neither teaches “providing” the two documents required by the
claims.
SUMMARY
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007