Appeal No. 2002-0867
Application No. 08/738,659
examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 45; filed Aug. 29, 2001) and the Reply
Brief (Paper No. 48; filed Jan. 14, 2002) for appellant’s position with respect to the
claims which stand rejected.2
OPINION
Section 103 rejection of claims 10, 12-19, 36, 38-44, 52-61, and 68-87 over
Kraslavsky and Cohn
The statement of the rejection of claims 10, 12-19, 36, 38-44, 52-61, and 68-87
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kraslavsky and Cohn is set forth in
the Answer. Since Kraslavsky is deemed to not explicitly teach that messages are
transmitted as Internet electronic mail messages, the rejection adds Cohn to show
suggestion to use an Internet electronic mail message format. (Answer at 5.)
A. Claims 10, 16, 36, 42, 74, 78, 82, and 86
Instant claims 10, 16, 36, 42, 74, 78, 82, and 86 do not require transmission of
Internet messages, nor sending messages in an Internet format. We enter new grounds
2 The file contains a paper styled as a “Final Rejection,” purportedly “Paper No. 46,” which further
purports to be in response to appellant’s paper filed August 29, 2001 (i.e., the Brief). The final page of
said Paper No. 46 contains a printed date of December 30, 2001. However, the paper is not stamped with
a mailing date; it is thus unclear whether a copy of the paper was mailed to appellant. Moreover, the
paper does not appear to withdraw the earlier rejection and reopen prosecution. Further, another “Paper
No. 46,” mailed November 19, 2001, documents consideration of an Information Disclosure Statement
submitted by appellant. In any event, the appeal is from the rejection mailed July 30, 2001. We have
jurisdiction because the claims have been twice rejected as of the date of the rejection under appeal.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007