Appeal No. 2003-2074
Application No. 09/095,325
Since, in our view, the examiner had no reasonable basis for
challenging the disclosure as to support for the transparency
feature (e.g., “. . .such that it will appear to the plurality of
message senders that the reply messages originated at the first
address associated with the host system”), we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 33-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, on this ground.
Finally, with regard to claims 33-55, 64, 66-103, and 106-
108, the examiner challenges the recition of “continuously
forwarding.”
It is not exactly clear, from Paper No. 25, explaining the
rejection, what the examiner’s problem is with the “continuously
forwarding” language. But, at pages 7-8 of the answer, the
examiner explains that while Figure 3 shows dots, there is “no
mention of a continuous loop of forwarding email to the client”
and that page 12 of the specification discloses that forwarding
of email is not “continuous and in fact only done by intervals
initiated by the communication server (specifics of how this is
done are not disclosed).”
Appellants response is that Figure 3 and page 12, lines 1-
29, support the instant claimed feature of “continuously
forwarding” by showing that new mail received for the mobile
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007