Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
associated with the subscriber to an e-mail address. Contrary to appellants’
arguments we find no limitation in claim 20 directed to facilitating roaming
capability. 2 Nonetheless, we do not find that Teper teaches that the GUID is
sent to a user in an e-mail. The sections of Teper, which the examiner cites,
discuss the contact between the service provider and the user to establish
authenticity of the user. The communications between the service provider and
user make use of cryptographic messages. However, we find no teaching in
Teper that the unique identifier is provided in an e-mail. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 5 and 14 are dependent upon claims 2 and 12 respectively. Claims
5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Teper and
Strandberg. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the
answer. The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that Strandberg teaches
the claim limitation of “determining if a request for roaming capability is received,
said request for roaming capability includes an email address.” Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claims 2 and 12.
2 We note that claim 20 is dependent upon claim 18. Claim 18 does not include
a limitation directed to roaming nor does it provide antecedent support for claim
20’s recitation of “the e-mail address.” However, claim 19 does contain a
limitation directed to roaming and provides antecedent basis for “the e-mail
address.”
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007