Appeal No. 2003-0655
Application No. 09/406,001
Also with respect to claim 10, we note that the “in the address database” language of
claim 1 discussed above has a parallel in step (d) of claim 10. The “to the second address book”
language of step (d) is not met by the act of file “replacement” as discussed above with respect to
claim 1. For this reason alone, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
VII. Whether the Rejection of Claims 13 and 14 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 13 and 14 for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 10 from which it depends. Accordingly, we reverse.
VIII. Whether the Rejection of Claims 15 and 17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 15 and 17 for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 10 from which it depends. Accordingly, we reverse.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007