Appeal No. 1999-1570
Application No. 08/673,184
Claims 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Pajak.
Claims 1-3, 5, 15,16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Torres in view of Bronson. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Torres and Bronson in view of Alexander.
Claims 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Torres
and Bronson in view of Microsoft Mail User’s Guide.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Sep. 30, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Sep. 15, 1998) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007