Appeal No. 2005-2528
Application No. 09/576,093
(filed Oct. 1, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 7, 2005) for appellants’ position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Nielsen describes an address-change server 103 (Fig. 1) on a network (e.g.,
Internet), whereby a mail recipient may transmit to the server an updated email address
(i.e., the old and new address). Col. 3, ll. 48-65. Address-change server 103 includes
database 135, which contains records comprising old and new email addresses. Col. 4,
ll. 34-51. The reference further describes, in columns 5 through 7, several ways in
which the destination address of an email that is sent to an “old” or outdated email
address may be updated to the “new” destination address by use of the information
contained in address-change server 103.
The examiner contended, in the final rejection, that Nielsen teaches receiving an
entry input from a user (i.e., the old email address) and automatically caching the user-
entered sending information if the information has not been previously saved, referring
to step 507 of Figure 5 of the reference. (Final Rejection at 2-3.) Appellants point out
that the antecedent in the claims for the information that is cached is that received from
the user at the sending device. The new email address (step 507) is not the sending
information entered at the sending device (i.e. not the old or original email address that
was entered by the user). (Brief at 13.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007