Appeal No. 2002-0867
Application No. 08/738,659
of rejection against these claims, infra. Since Kraslavsky discloses all that is required
by the claims, we will sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
B. Claims 12-15, 17-19, 38-41, 43, 44, 52-61, 68-73, 75-77, 79-81, 83-85,
and 87
The remainder of the claims require, as set forth in broadest claims 54, 68, 69,
70, and 71 of the group, transmitting an Internet electronic mail message over the
Internet, or outside of a local network. We interpret transmission of the Internet
electronic mail message, as claimed, as requiring more than the electronic message
transmission as disclosed by Kraslavsky. We note, in particular, appellant’s description
of Internet mail communications at page 7 of the specification.
In response to the section 103 rejection over Kraslavsky and Cohn, appellant
argues, inter alia, that at the time of invention email (or Internet electronic mail
transmission, as required by the instant group of claims), was considered to lack
interactivity and rapid communication features. Appellant relies on an expert’s
declaration (submitted May 11, 2001) as support for the view. Appellant posits that, as
a consequence, the artisan would not have thought to modify the Kraslavsky system.
(Brief at 8-9.)
We are substantially in agreement with the examiner’s position (e.g., Answer at
11-12). Neither the briefs nor the declaration point to any express support for the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007