Appeal No. 2000-1794
Application 08/901,171
unresponsive to the printed matter limitations in claims 1 and
11. The examiner’s position that these differences do not
constitute patentable distinctions is substantively identical
to that advanced with respect to claims 1 and 11 and the
Hersheys.com reference and is unpersuasive for the same
reasons.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 12 as being unpatentable over Hill.
VI. New rejection
The following new rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 1, 11 and 13, and claims 2 through 10 which depend
from claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter the appellant regards as the
invention.
Independent claim 1 is unclear as to the relationship
between the “single message” and the subsequently recited
“first response solicitive message.” Amending the recitation
of the “first response solicitive message” to read as –-a first
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007