Appeal No. 2000-2245
Application No. 08/661,686
message [column 1, line 50].
Accordingly, Gross does disclose a method for processing e-mail which comprises
the steps of automatically presenting an e-mail message to a “first trusted recipient”
[anyone receiving the e-mail may be a “trusted recipient”], classifying the e-mail
message [the message is screened and decisions made based on that screening and
certain rules]. As the examiner explains, classification specifically as “junk e-mail” is
relative and any action taken by Gross which deletes an e-mail may be considered a
deletion because the recipient considered this e-mail to be “junk e-mail,” i.e., junk e-mail
is in the eye of the beholder. When such e-mail is deleted, i.e., “classified as junk e-mail,”
this automatically prevents presentation of such e-mail message to one or more of a
plurality of recipients.
Thus, the examiner’s rationale is reasonable, to a point. However, each of the
instant independent claims 1 and 12 requires that the first trusted recipient to whom the e-
mail message is presented is but “one of a plurality of trusted recipients.” Thus, any one of
the plurality of trusted recipients may decide that a certain message is “junk e-
mail” and delete that message for the whole group, thus preventing any others in the group
from seeing the message because it has already been deleted by one of the trusted
plurality. While Gross may be considered as sending a message to a “first trusted
recipient,” this “first trusted recipient” is also the only recipient that may decide
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007