Ex Parte Bright et al - Page 11



                 Appeal No. 2005-2338                                                                                 
                 Application No. 09/754,001                                                                           

                       Rejection of claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102                           
                        We next consider the rejection of claims 2, 12 and 19 as being anticipated                    
                 by Teper.  Appellants argue on page 9 of the brief:                                                  
                               [C]laims 2, 12 and 19 are further patentable over Teper, because                       
                        Teper failed [sic fails] to teach the required “receiving of a request for                    
                        roaming capability” as well as “the request comprising an e-mail address”                     
                        (hereinafter “request2”).                                                                     
                               In paragraph 2 of the rejection, the Examiner continued to assert                      
                        that Teper teaches “roaming capability” because the Examiner interprets                       
                        the term to mean “access to online services is being made available to                        
                        more than one user, due to Applicants’ disclosure in page 11, 3rd                             
                        paragraph of the specification…. Instead person [of] ordinarily skill in the                  
                        art would clearly understand “roaming” to mean a user being able to                           
                        access the one or more service from any client in any location, especially                    
                        in view of other complementary usage of the term throughout the                               
                        specification.                                                                                
                        In response the examiner states, on page 7 of the answer: “Tamer [sic                         
                 Teper] discloses accessing the Internet using a Service Provider is deemed to be                     
                 accessed anywhere in the world and further describes email capability.  See                          
                 7:40-65; 8:1-20.”                                                                                    
                        We disagree with the examiner.  Claim 2 includes the limitation                               
                 “determining if a request for roaming capability is received, said request for                       
                 roaming capability includes an e-mail address.”  Claims 12 and 19 contain similar                    
                 limitations. Thus, we find that the scope of these claims includes a determination                   
                 of whether there is a request for roaming.  As appellants assert, we find that                       
                 appellants’ specification on page 11 identifies that roaming is the ability for users                
                 to access and utilize one or more services from any client or location.  We concur                   
                 with the examiner and find that Teper teaches that the Internet can be used and                      
                 that the user can access service providers from many locations.  However, we                         
                                                         11                                                           



Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007