Ex Parte Bright et al - Page 12



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

                 find no disclosure in the sections cited by the examiner of a determination of                       
                 whether a request is a request for roaming capability which contains an email                        
                 address.   Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2,                    
                 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                                                                     
                        Claims 3 and 4 are dependent upon claim 2 and claim 13 is dependent                           
                 upon claim 12.  We reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims 35 U.S.C.                        
                 § 102 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 2 and 12.                               
                        Next we consider the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                             
                 Appellants argue on page 10 of the brief:                                                            
                               Claims 3, 13 and 20 are also further patentable over Teper,                            
                        because Teper failed to teach the required limitation of “said facilitating                   
                        comprises sending an email, including the GUID associated with the                            
                        subscriber, to the email address.”  The limitation does not merely recites                    
                        [sic recite] transmission of email.  As discussed earlier, it requires the                    
                        employment of an email having the GUID, sent to an email address                              
                        associated with a “roaming capability” to make possible roaming for the                       
                        user (“said facilitating comprises”).                                                         
                               Col. 9, lines 55-57 merely teach sending billing statements to a                       
                        user via email.  In the cases of col. 10, lines 51-57 and col. 3, lines 14-16,                
                        neither contain any teaching that has anything to do with email, and                          
                        certainly not the recited required use of the email, having a GUID to                         
                        effectuate roaming access.                                                                    
                        In response the examiner asserts, on page 7 of the answer, that Teper                         
                 discloses that the GUID is sent in a message to the user, citing column 9, lines                     
                 50-60 and column 10, lines 25 to 54.                                                                 
                        We agree with appellants.  Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 18 and                            
                 includes limitations for an apparatus that stores machine executable instructions,                   
                 which operate to receive a request from a client to access a subscribed online                       
                 service of an online service provider, and to send an e-mail, including the GUID                     
                                                         12                                                           



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007