Appeal No. 2002-0867
Application No. 08/738,659
We have addressed the substantive limitations of independent claim 10 and
dependent claim 74. The remainder of the claims (16, 36, 42, 78, 82, and 86) are also
anticipated, reciting limitations similar in scope to claims 10 and 74.
Declaration submitted at oral hearing
In anticipation that we might enter new grounds of rejection over Kraslavsky,
based on a broader interpretation of “electronic mail,” as we did in the earlier appeal,
appellant’s representative presented copies of an expert’s declaration (37 CFR § 1.132)
at the oral hearing.4 The declarant states therein (¶ 9) that “[i]t is my understanding
that the meaning of electronic mail may be at issue.”
The declarant sets forth the opinion (¶ 12) that the artisan would have
considered, at the time of invention, the basic features of electronic mail to be that (1)
electronic mail is used to send messages between electronic devices, (2) electronic mail
is sent through or received from an electronic mail box or e-mail account, and (3)
electronic mail is sent through or received from a host computer, sometimes referred to
as a “mail server.”
As factual support for the opinion, the declaration provides, and references, a
portion (six pages) of a text published in 1995. As set forth on the second page of the
provided copies, the text, “At ease with e-mail: A handbook on using electronic mail for
4 A copy of the declaration has been entered in the instant file wrapper as Paper No. 56.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007